New iMac doesn't play nice with Apple's Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter
By Donald Melanson 
posted Oct 26th 2009 11:59PM
posted Oct 26th 2009 11:59PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
As far as I know, Belkin is working on an adapter that'll be out soon.
Which Apple has already announced and Engadget is blissfully unaware of. What else is new.
I really like apple computers. I think they are just neat and shiny. I like to sleep with my macbook pro.
I'm sure your MBP is happy to sleep with you, too
You don't own a mac, the mac owns you!
How hard can it be to design a freakin adapter?
http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/MiniDisplayPortImpLicense.pdf
9. Term and Termination
B. This Implementation License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate immediately and automatically, without notice from Apple, if:
iii. if You, at any time during the term of this Implementation License, commence and action for patent infringement against Apple.
That might have something to do with the slow uptake of the Mini-DisplayPort connector with third parties.
OMG Epic Fail, how can people continue to buy windows 7 when microsoft doesnt allow you to do something so basic. You should just buy OSX and it will just work.
oh oh sorry i read the headlines wrong. Thought this was about microsoft.
oh its apple, well you know its not such a major feature that anyone will use anyway and if you really need a second monitor that bad buy an apple studio display. Plus apple told everyone in advance that this was going to happen. Stop making such a big deal out of it Engadget. Steve hasnt hurt anyone, he just wants to make the world a better place.
I wish Apple had also added a HDMI port. I know HDMI is way inferior to DisplayPort, and every games console and TV will eventually go DisplayPort, but until that happens it would be nice to have a HDMI input to hook up that PS3 or XBox 360...
Really? Display port is better? I thought they did the same thing, just had different connectors.
PS: If your comment was sarcasm, please forgive my comment.
it's the same thing - all they do is convert one digital signal to another neither is "better"
Oh but I thought LightPeak was supposed to take over the world?
DisplayPort supports much higher throughput and resolutions than HDMI, so it is superior. It's also an open standard.
I am not defending Apple's position -- I really think they should include HDMI. If I were the owner of a brand new iMac, I'd be pissed off at having to wait for a special adapter to hook up my console.
hahahah you said hdmi sucks compared to DP so the Apple Fan Boys wouldn't jump all over you
how cute
Actually, doesn't HDMI 1.3 support the same Max res as Display Port, and doesn't HDMI 1.4 support an even higher one? :x
Matt:
No it doesn't. Look it up. HDMI 1.3 has 10.2 gigabits/second bandwidth and DisplayPort has 8.64 gigabits/second bandwidth. DisplayPort has more bandwidth than HDMI 1.2, but HDMI 1.3 was actually out before DisplayPort devices were, so DisplayPort has never in practice had more bandwidth than HDMI.
in terms of pure capability HDMI vs DisplayPort is like USB vs Firewire, you're going to see a lot of juggling back and forth
The main reason to go DisplayPort is because there is no licensing cost
Reminds me of the time everyone got mad because new models their favorite PMPs didn't playback MPEG, it's because the patent holders starting demanding payment
One factor on the HDMI side is that the new spec (I think 1.4) supports ethernet over HDMI. Useful in the near future for TV's supporting it that have built-in network capabilities so you can just run the one HDMI cable to your TV that supports video, audio, and ethernet. I think the new spec even supports bi-directional audio so you can also run audio back from your TV to the receiver if you're pulling down an OTA signal.
None of that stuff really matters for the iMac, but for the DP vs HDMI argument it should be considered.
DisplayPort 1.2 will double the bandwidth of 1.1 (to be almost twice that of HDMI 1.4) -- there'll always be something new coming around the corner. I think everyone agrees that a micro-HDMI connector would be nicer at the present time in Apple products. Maybe in the future it'll be nice to have DisplayPort, but right now it kind of sucks.
I'm sorry, I had gotten that wrong. It seems I had read the HDMI 1.2 spec a while ago. It now seems that their capabilities are similar, and ethernet over HDMI sounds highly interesting.
So it seems that the advantage of DisplayPort is that it's more open: no need to pay licensing fees.
I am sure Apple could afford the $1 or whatever it is adding HDMI as well without passing it on directly to the consumer. I'll say it again: if I was the owner of a brand new iMac, I would be pissed off at having to buy another cable or adapter. I wouldn't understand why Apple couldn't couldn't just have both HDMI and DisplayPort on the iMac. Considering how widespread HDMI is, that would make sense.
DisplayPort 1.2 also cuts the maximum cable length to 2 meters. Which is barely enough for a computer, it's a problem for use in other situations.
The ethernet in HDMI 1.4 is only 100Base-T. I'm not giving up GigE.
Besides, Apple still doesn't even have audio over DisplayPort right now. That's a complete drag. At least with real HDMI devices you do get audio. Uncompressed audio. For DisplayPort, it's still "coming soon".
why all these "mini" ports? a standard HDMI port is quite thin, and so is standard DisplayPort. the most ridiculous is the use of mini-Toslink in the new Mac Minis. i don't see why mini ports should ever be used on a full laptop, let alone a desktop.
question: what's the deal with HDMI and HDCP? is HDCP required for everything played over HDMI? or just protected stuff (somehow)? or is it not really required at all? a while back i thought someone said that HDMI required HDCP encoding/decoding at both ends, and displayport had a benefit in that it didn't. could someone address this?
HDMI does not require HDCP. Some content refuses to play (i.e. HD iTunes store movies) if you don't have it though. HDMI and DisplayPort have the same restrictions in terms of copy protection. If you don't have end-to-end encryption on your digital display link, you're gonna have a hard time for certain content, whether it's going over HDMI, DVI or DisplayPort.
DisplayPort supports and alternate encryption system, DPCP, but in practice no one uses it, links use HDCP, which then makes your connectors no longer royalty free.
Displayport is bi-directional, so data can go from the computer to the monitor, and from the monitor to the computer.
This is great for monitors with built-in webcams or multi-touch surfaces. It's not all about bandwidth.
Hi, my name is KarlW.
I know very little about HDMI, but i own a Mac so I'm going to splurt out what little I know about Apple's fancy plug thingy. Jobs is my hero!
**Note: HDMI isnt one-way either...
Wow, that was pretty rude.
Just responding to your ignorance Karl
Wow. Apple's changing things?? And they're not being consistent or sticking with standards? Hmmmm... That's a first... ;)
Read the article again. You failed to the first time apparently. You also know nothing about Apple's history.
Terry, try commenting again. You clearly failed the first time
F*ck Apple. They're changing things without notifying their customers. The last time I checked my Apple composite AV cable was working but when I upgraded to their latest firmware, it doesn't work anymore. Bullshit.
i don't understand. you bought the fricken monitor, why does apple insist on not letting you use it unless they're getting a cut? this is beyond greed.
It's a fricken computer, not a monitor.
oh so just because the monitor and cpu are in one package, it magically turns into something else?
by your logic, if you tied your monitor to your desktop, the monitor would no longer exist but would magically fuse with the desktop to form a freak chimeric unicorn?
the MONITOR came bundled together with the iMac, they just happen to be in the same package. i don't see how this is any different than normally buying a monitor and desktop together.
apple chose to support the monitor feature, but since they're greedy bitches, they're only doing so if they get a cut of the profit.
i don't see how there's any other way to read it.
You should care. When the motherboard blows in two years that's all you'll be left with. An overpriced display. Welcome to the world of all in one computers...
Hi Dan... I'm pissed I can't use my laptop as a monitor, please fix this for me. I paid for the screen I want to display whatever I choose on it.
ErnieP, are you aware that with the quality of that display, along with the resolution, the display is actually underpriced? It is essentially worth the price of the display, without the computer.
Also, if you're worried about the motherboard going in two years, buy a warranty.
@David
APPLE CHOSE TO SUPPORT THE MONITOR FEATURE BUT ARE ONLY RESTRICTING IT TO APPLE DEVICES.
YOUR LAPTOP COULD NEVER SUPPORT A MONITOR FEATURE TO BEGIN WITH.
stop trying to compare apples to oranges. analogy fail.
@ErnieP: If the motherboard blows in 2 years, you have no monitor at all since the input video is routed through the computer motherboard.
"it's almost certainly only a matter of time before Apple or a third-party manufacturer comes out with an adapter that does work"
Thats the silver lining to this cloud? That users will be able to fix this by throwing more money at apple?
And good work with the disclaimer at the beginning, like we expected apple to let us do something like that?
You could wonder.. who is the biggest idiot here. Apple for continiously messing over their own standards or the consumer who just keeps throwing money at Apple to get their own properties to function as they should. In the end as long as the consumer accepts being nailed over and over by Apple I can´t say there is a problem since people simply accept it. Now this is for the iMac equiped with a buildin screen but what´s next, you want your swell Mac to work with a proper high-quality screen and Apple decides it´s a no go. In the end as long as consumers accept to be fucked from behind over and over Apple will keep doing it the only solution is to make the sales drop even further till Apple figures out this bastard behaviour isn´t what the consumer wants. Btw is it just me or do I read news from Apple daily where they figured out a new way to nail their consumer?
This reminds me of the iPhone and all those wonderful iPod devices and docks that worked with every iPod on the market... except the damn iPhone. So now you have to go out and buy new docks and new FM Transmitters and things like the Apple FM remote won't even work. Pick a standard and stick with it!
So Apple is just acting like how Apple usually acts? This is news?
of course it is....
because this is Engadget.
unfortunate, I had pondered how I might go HDMI to DVI and then through to Mini DPort via the Apple adaptor. Well that sounds totally unlikely.
Have you mob (engadget) got it to work with anything?!
Figures. These jerkwads do crap like this all the time. How many frickin monitor ports have there been now? I have 4 different adapters because of these pricks.
The latest BS from them is with my 13" MBP and the Mini DisplayPort -> VGA adapter I bought from the Apple store. Their own adapter doesn't even work. I had to go out and buy yet another adapter (Mini DisplayPort -> DVI) and a DVI -> HDMI adapter cable just to use my MBP with my LCD TV (Samsung).
I know of no other company that pulls this kind of crap on their customers on a regular basis.
You know, you can get a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter from monoprice.com
Yeah, I had already bought the DVI adapter from Apple though and couldn't return it by the time I realized my TV didn't have DVI.
So it's Apples fault that you are too stupid to buy the right cable. Thats a first.
I think his point is that buying an adapter shouldn't be necessary at all. It doesn't help that Apple's adapter didn't work, either. If Apple would just suck it up and put an HDMI port on their computers, people wouldn't have to deal with this bullshit of having to use an adapter to connect a computer to anything not made by Apple in the last year. It is shit like this that makes me keep buying PCs.
The worst bit? There's no mini-DisplayPort -> standard DisplayPort adapter. At all. I mean, how did they miss the obvious one?
So what do they exactly mean with 'All in one'?
You buy a (seriously priced) computer with a stunning display, perfect for viewing HD contents, supposedly aimed at 'consumer' customers, which...
*needs an external player to play HD contents (forget downloads or streaming, that might work for US but outside it's not much doable for lack of bandwidth or restrictions on the GB allowances, or simply lack of providers. And I'm writing from central London, not a sub-saharian village)
*even when you got yourself a player, you need a series of adapters to connect it
*camera quality seems to be so poor you end up considering an external one
I like Macs, but in my view this iMac is one of the less balanced designs they've done. It sounds better as a professional workstation (but then you'd wonder why not using i5 and i7 across the platform, rather than a Core2Duo, architecture introduced in 2006!) rather than as a consumer computer (which is supposed to be used also for entertainment, like say... play your blue-ray collection?)
Shame Apple, after waiting for this model to come out I'll have to go for a PC as I need to change right now, I won't buy your All-but-what-it-really-needs-in-one this time
And no matter all you saying 'yes go for it, Apple doesn't want you', Apple is just like any other company: they just want to make more money, which translates in more buyers! And like me there are many many others disappointed by such lack of basic features, which nowadays you can expect form even lower-priced consumer products
All those claiming that this is a product perfect like it is, and that 'Apple know what they do' seem to forget that the BR was to be included, and only just before the iMac went in production it was pulled out as it was still 'a bag of hurts'. If you change the design of a product at the very last moment, what you get is not perfection, but just a patch
Why the hell would you even want to go to VGA in the first place? On a nice LCD? VGA (analog) will look like ass compared to HDMI(digital). Just saying, you look kinda stupid crying about a VGA adapter not working for a LCD, and to add insult to injury you actually complain about having to go with a better cable. FAIL. Enjoy your nice picture quality, thanks to Apple's mistake.
You know, I'm a big Apple fan, but I'll readily admit that not being able to use that glorious screen as a legitimate external monitor right out of the box, with no further wait or purchases necessary, is totally f*cked.
So now Apple should include very possible cable you might ever use for any device despite the fact that most users will never ever plug anything into this port? Do you have any idea how many devices and therefore cables that would be? I don't think you do.
Who said anything about cables? They could just get real and put an HDMI port on the damn thing. If they DID, tons of people would use it as a display.
If Microsoft or any other manufacturer did some bullshit like this, engadget would be up in arms, complaining. Apple does it and it doesn't matter since "it's almost certainly only a matter of time before Apple or a third-party manufacturer comes out with an adapter that does work."
"almost certainly only a matter of time" ??????
I don't think Engadget admits to themselves that they are Apple biased. To them, this is just trying to "stay neutral".
For obvious proof see the ZuneHD playcount post...
Why would it? Apple's Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter does exactly that, converts from Mini DisplayPort to DVI. Why would anyone expect it to go the other way around? Come on, I thought this was a tech site.
Exactly. This issue has existed since they released the Mini DisplayPort equipped laptops and the 24" LED-backlit Cinema Display. The Apple adapter has existed since that time, but it is meant to allow the laptop owners to plug into non-Mini DisplayPort monitors, not to allow DVI-equipped machines to plug into the new monitor. This new iMac as a display problem is just an extension of the old problem and has absolutely nothing to do with the Apple Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter.
Incidentally, there is a DVI to Mini DisplayPort adapter made by Atlona, which Engadget reported on, but it's not a very elegant solution and isn't cheap.
As long as you have a compatable cable, it should work both ways.
The thing is, Apple made a pretty big hoo-rah over how you can now connect devices to the iMac and use it as a monitor. Considering that only Apple use MiniDisplayport, so you need adaptors for everything.
@CJ
No, it shouldn't. A video cable isn't bi-directional. The logic required to convert from Displayport to DVI is not the same as from DVI to display port. The electrons only flow one direction...
@ Marcus,
You're right, but for the wrong reason. It's not about the cable itself being unidirectional or electrons only flowing one way; basic physics tells you that copper can conduct a signal in either direction (but not both at the same time on the same strand) and that electrons will move based on magnetic fields.
The reason the Mini-DP to DVI adapter does not work in the other direction has to do with the components in question. A device that can OUTPUT DisplayPort has chip logic that allows it to fall back to DVI/HDMI signalling mode; DVI and HDMi are electrically compatible but are completely different from DisplayPort's native packet signalling technique. The reason a Mini-DP to DVI/HDMI adapter works in that case is because the adapter does not have to do anything to the signal except pass it along on the proper pins; the video card has already fallen back to a backward-compatible method.
However, when the DisplayPort connection is on the RECEIVING end such as with the iMac, it is getting a DVI/HDMI signal, which it does not know how to interpret and which the adapter does not have the necessary logic to convert for it. The problem is that non-DisplayPort output devices do not know how to perform DisplayPort signalling and therefore cannot send a signal that the display can understand. I suppose theoretically that issue could be remedied by including chips or logic on DisplayPort-equipped displays to allow them to interpret a legacy signalling technique coming in on a DisplayPort connector, but I'm not sure whether there are technical limitations that prevent this possibility.
actually ive used a dvi to hdmi adapter to go both ways, from a computer that is dvi out to a tv that hdmi in and from a console that was hdmi out to a tv that was dvi in. Also i was able to do that with old school converters too. So it isnt weird to expect an adapter to adapt both ways.
@ vannyx,
Exactly. The reason that worked is that DVI and HDMI are electrically identical and therefore require no processing on the adapter's part to convert the signal; the adapter just has to remap the signals to the proper pins. In the case of DisplayPort, the reason Mini-DP to DVI adapters themselves do not have any processing circuitry is because the DisplayPort output device takes care of that by falling back to HDMI/DVI signalling and therefore the adapter again just has to remap the signals to the proper pins. But that's why they can't be used to convert a native HDMI/DVI signal to a DisplayPort signal if the device receiving the signal only understands DisplayPort. That's also why adapters that actually CAN convert a DVI signal to DisplayPort (or a DisplayPort signal to VGA) are so much more expensive -- the adapters in those cases are not passive but actually have onboard processing chips to convert the signal itself.
Can you hook a second non-Apple monitor into it? Or does that not work either?
Yes, that same port can function as an output to a second display (Apple or otherwise)
yes, its only the intake that doesnt do what no one elses does either. the exhaust works fine.
Apple Fail
What about the Atlona DVI > mini-DP system that was announced on here about 3 weeks ago.
Seems feasible to go HDMI > DVI into this device, let it do it's magic to output mini-DP, and then go from there. Of course, it's a pretty expensive experiment, but I'm sure somebody out there has the means to try it.
That's the one I thought of when I read this... http://www.hdwise.com/Atlona-AT-DP200-DVI-to-Mini-DisplayPort-Converter-p-782.html. But at $160 I would think again.
That won't work because it doesn't output to a high enough resolution. It maxes out at 1920x1200, far short of the iMacs screen.
I don't think a simple adapter would work, I'm pretty sure you would have to have a converter box. I still think its weird only the 27incher does input.
Belkin is working on an adapter now - looks more complicated then a simple cable. The existing cables are unidirectional.
Page is down now but Google cache strikes again!
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:foZ_M_x3SeUJ:catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process%3FProduct_Id%3D508267+belkin+displaypirt+hdmi&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
Why does everyone think this is a monitor? Its an IMAC for those who dont know, its a an all-in-one COMPUTER.
The iMac 27" is the highest resolution and size display Apple sells, at all, while their cinema displays languish.
No, Apple still sells a 30" display. This is smaller than that. The 30" also has more vertical resolution (it is 16:10). So this is neither the largest size or highest resolution display Apple sells.
uh duh.......that also acts as an external monitor!
Mini DisplayPort.
The Mini DisplayPort lets you connect an external display, including the Apple LED Cinema Display, to your iMac. On the 27-inch iMac, THE SAME PORT OFFERS INPUT, TOO. So YOU CAN CONNECT ANY EXTERNAL SOURCE that has DisplayPort output — including a MacBook or MacBook Pro — and use your iMac as a display.
Sounds like a monitor to me!!
wouldn't this work??
http://www.atlona.com/Atlona-DVI-to-Mini-DisplayPort-Converter-p-17859.html
I'm pretty sure that would work, only way it wouldn't if the res isnt high enough.
The main drawback of this solution is it costs $179. I really wonder how much effort Apple will put into mini displayport with Light Peak looking to hit markets soon.
What the hell Apple? Why not put in HDMI like 99.99% of all new electronics today. Really, what uses DisplayPort? Whats the use of having video-in if you cant use it with anything good????
I'm fine with them having DisplayPort (it is a good standard, but the use of MINI DisplayPort is, I agree, bullshit), but there is no reason they can' t use both. Every PC I see has two video out ports of varying type but Apple refuses to do the same.
agree with cmsb55. should have both, and why this mini crap? especially on a desktop. the most absurd is the mini-Toslink in the new Mac Minis. even regular Toslink is like half a square centimeter!
2 video outs? Even low-end motherboards today are coming with 3 outs (VGA/DVI/HDMI). To have just one, and that one be far from an industry standard is absurd.
HDMI has a liscensing fee attached to it's use.
Displayport does not.
The use of a proprietary versions of an open-source connector, however, remains unforgivable.
I know Apple likes to make it look like they're blazing a trail and all, but what's wrong with the HDMI connection that every HDTV, lots of laptops, many cameras and camcorders, and more than a few monitors use? DisplayPort may have a higher theoretical blah-blah-blah, but HDMI is used by tons of devices right now.
I swear, Apple is the new Sony.
First off, it's hilarious to see how many people are up in arms because the iMac desktop computer can't be used as a giant TV.
I get it, though. This has the highest pixel density you can possibly get on a monitor for under $1800 AND it comes with a high power'd Mac computer inside of it. Great deal, right?
And still, you people are whining because you can't hook up your XBOX360s to it and play 1080p games on a 27" display?
Who the hell would do this, anyway?!
It's a computer display. It's meant to show high resolution graphics, relatively 12-24 inches away from your face.
If you were serious about playing your video games in HD, you wouldn't bother with anything under 36". 50"+ if you were that serious about 1080p.
Get real and move on
i have a 42" 1080p TV in my common area, but when my roommates are using that, i bring my 360 into my room and use a 15" monitor. it works fine because i sit much closer to it than a TV. it's all about distance.
Terry,
You gotta play nice bro. Do you really think calling everyone doofuses and fools is going to help your argument? Just put some facts behind what you gotta say rather than continuously saying that everyone doesn't know sh*t.
Either that or smoke more pot. I recommend the latter.
using the imac as an xbox 360 screen would just be rad as a college all-in-one. the new sony and hp have ins on them and are multi-purpose. i actually wish that laptops came standard with an hdmi in. even a 15 inch laptop would be perfect for halo 3 lan parties. then all you would have to bring is your laptop and your 360. instead of packing a projector or whatever. its funny because i used to be a pc gamer but now i am into the 3 consoles and could care less about pc gaming.
I'm just trying to remember the last time that PC's made a genuine and definite switch from one monitor cable to another in which the previous one would no longer work....
Oh that's right Apple fans, we're actually afforded the luxury of choice, where you pay for the luxury of restriction.
Familiar with the word "to" ?
Apple's Mini Displayport TO DVI adaptor converts the digital video signal from Mini Displyport connectors TO DVI-D.
Just like they say.
C'mon guys.
Gefen & Belkin will likely have the first examples. Don't hold your breath for HDCP support though.
A few things on the technical side:
-I don't think it's worth worrying about whether the maximum cable length of DisplayPort 1.2 is sufficient for living-room applications. There won't be any consumer TVs capable of displaying a resolution needing 1.2 anytime soon, so 1.1 is just fine for these connections
-One of the major advantages of DisplayPort, besides being cheaper, is that it's meant for implementation not just for external interfaces. It's also going to replace the currently prevailing LVDS connections inside notebooks and computers, meaning the display panels are going to support it directly. The result is simplification on the graphics chips and panels, meaning less cost and quicker time-to-market
-I don't think there will ever be DVI or VGA input supported as input formats on the new iMac. Apple only advertised DisplayPort input and that's what it is. For DVI output there's an added transmitter in the iMac and for VGA the transmitter chip is inside the adapter dongle. Neither of them is capable of receiving signals. However since the internal display panel of the new iMacs is one of those new ones that use DisplayPort internally - so the iMac can route through a displayport input to the panel. And only DisplayPort.
PS: That means that of course anybody who wants to actively convert whatever VGA or DVI signal to DisplayPort, can do that and feed it into the iMac. It's just none of today's adapters are meant to do that and it's not just a matter of changing some wires but you need silicon.
Can you guys please stop down ranking Terry? I can't read any of his posts - the font is too light since all of his posts are marked as "Lowest Ranked".
Nothing better than reading an Apple apologist defending the need to spend EVEN MORE money for an already overpriced piece of hardware.
DisplayPort port or HDMI does not really matter if it is possible to get an adaptor.
But Apple does not output audio which is so stupid and leads to product with two cables: one to take the video from the DisplayPort and the other to get the audio from a USB port.
It's so lame...