Dell, HP, Lenovo Announce New Display Protocol 188
An anonymous reader writes "If HDMI, DVI and UDI weren't enough for you, several major PC manufacturers have announced a joint alliance to come up with another display adapter, creatively named Displayport. The new method is backwards compatible with DVI, but offers double the bandwidth."
uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck this shit! Put a bullet in that mod's head (Score:2)
Re:uh (Score:5, Funny)
It seems these fly by night moderators are on some kind of a witch hunt.
Moderators need to look a little closer to the heart and think of the effect modding has on a poster's karma, because when it comes to karma, I think Tom Saywer said it best:
Re:uh (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM aspects (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DRM aspects (Score:3, Informative)
Last I heard, it was flopping horribly. Wonder what happened.
Re:DRM aspects (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite, its more of a sidegrade. DisplayPort is a direct competitor to UDI which is an Intel scheme to do the same thing.
Both have 'content protection'. I don't know why folk get so up tight about it. There is no way it can possibly work. Copy protection is break once run anywhere. The copyright pirates are going to quickly take apart a display and extract the keys, once they do thay they can do anything they like.
What I am more anoyed ab
Re:DRM aspects (Score:5, Informative)
Pointless aspects (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:3, Informative)
Probably. It may be necessary to have it for certain "protected" media in Windows Vista, but the easy solution is to not buy that protected media. And not buy Vista as well, assuming it comes out.
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
These guys may be evil but they are not stupid. If you think they are going to leave you with a choice not to use their stuff you have another thing coming.
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:5, Insightful)
To use your car anaolgy, it would be like car manufactures being forced to make cars that couldn't speed. And yes that would cause one hell of an uproar. So I, like everyone else will bitch about HDCP crap.
DRM has a NEGATIVE value to the consumer, the only way to get consumers to buy it is to force them. It really pisses me off. We could be in the middle of a true revolution in digital content, but the "Content Providers" are such greedy bastards they need to "protect their revenue", all while failing to realize that if they just went along with what everyone wanted, they could actually, eventually make MORE money (see the VCR for an historical example they themselves experienced, but are unable, do to their stupidity to apply to this situation).
And true there really is a digital content revolution going on right now, but its wayyy behind where it could (or should) be.
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
- the VCR had AGC (early models often didn't) and didn't know how to crack it open to adjust it manually
- you have not heard of Sima Copymaster or other notch filters or video processors
- don't buy a VCR with front inputs, which are often not negatively affected by Macrovision.
Also note:
- Editing VCRs (not consumer models with editing features, I'm talking professional VCRs, which often had RS-232 ports for control by other video devices or computers)
- Tape du
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
I completely agree with you. I'm just saying that from any perspective, your idea of not supporting something that'll be there regardless is idiotic. Yes, not
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
If Microsoft refused to support HDCP in any form, you'd just complain that you have no way to view any new content in Vista.
No, you'd still be able to view that content. It wouldn't be protected. Whaddya think, everybody's gonna buy Macs?
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Not pointless at all.
The output channel is the last place where people who want to break DRM can still manage to do so. No matter what DRM is in place on the computer to prevent copying/duplication/modification, once it's gone through all that, it goes so some sort of output device (speakers for sound, monitor for video). At that point, the DRM protecting the content is nullified, and whatever you wanted to do with the signal at that point you can.
DRM on the output channel prevents all of the "analog" (
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
DRM on the output channel prevents all of the "analog" (I know, most new video outputs are digital, but the same methods apply) hacks from extracting the content from the DRM.
Of course, this only affects hobbyists and Linux users (and people who build their boxes). Real counterfeiters just copy the whole enchilada, often at the same factory. DRM has nothing to do with piracy.
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't. Open up your nice LCD screen and intercept the signal in the cables / rails / whatever that lead to the liquid crystal dots.
Too much work for Joe Sixpack, you say. But Joe doesn't need to do it. It's enough that someone, anyone, does it, and then all the Joes in the world can download it from the friendly neighborh
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Cheers.
Re:Pointless aspects-Karma. (Score:2)
Do you know what my name is ?
Do you know if I'm the same guy who talked about hackers gaining face above ?
Pseudonyms aren't anything new. You arrange an alternative identity for yourself, separate from your "mundane" identity. No one would suspect that mild-mannered Clark Sixpack is really Sup3rh4xor, the caped Internet superhero, fighting against the evil forces of Rex DRM and his RIAACorp, and having an online affair with Lois Line, who is a 40-year old
Re:Pointless aspects-Karma. (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:Pointless aspects (Score:2)
Re:DRM aspects (Score:3, Insightful)
That's funny, my computers can access premium content now..... without phoning home to see if it's okay.
Why are computer manufacturers so ready to jump in bed with the RIAA/MPAA? If they don't cooperate, will the RIAA/MPAA suddenly decide not to play in the computer arena anymore? I'd like to see that happening. The most I see happening is the RIAA/MPAA bitching
Re:DRM aspects (Score:2)
Sony is a giant in both the entertainment industry and electronics.
Fully half of Apple's revenues come from the iPod and iTunes. There are strategic alliances between all the major players in these industries, including, of course, retailers like Walmart.
Re:DRM aspects (Score:2)
Why are computer manufacturers so ready to jump in (Score:2)
As long as you don't actually kill someone, it sure looks to me as if the penalty is less for actually misbehaving with a gun than it is being accused of "illegal downloading" with a computer.
That's why.
The real question to ask is why America is perfectly happy and ready to throw away its
Re:DRM aspects (Score:2)
access to premium content (Score:2)
Re:DRM aspects (Score:2)
Re:DRM aspects (Score:2)
Re: Dell, HP, Lenovo Announce New Display Protocol (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Dell, HP, Lenovo Announce New Display Protocol (Score:5, Funny)
Copy Protection Optional (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copy Protection Optional (Score:2, Insightful)
KFG
Re:Copy Protection Optional (Score:2)
Re:Copy Protection Optional (Score:3, Interesting)
i remember sky here in the uk introduced macrovison when they introduced sky digital but there was so much bad press (and remember sky have to compete with cablecos etc) that they turned it off for thier normal channels (they still use it on pay per view i belive).
Re:Copy Protection Optional (Score:4, Insightful)
Bandwidth... (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that today's top-of-the-line LCD displays, running at QUXGA (3200x2400) require multiple DVI dual link connections, and comprise multiple discrete panels, each with its individual signal feed. A display by IBM (T221, I believe is the model number) currently does this.
I believe Lenovo manufactures IBM's flat panel displays. Could the T221 be a potential justification for Lenovo to co-sponsor this technology?
Re:Bandwidth... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I am all for this. 1) backwards compatibility is friendly and 2) I've seen the best HD TV can do and I want better.
Re:Bandwidth... (Score:2)
Re:Bandwidth... (Score:5, Informative)
IBM's manufacturing partner for the T22x family was IDTech in Japan.
IBM stopped selling the monitors almost a year ago, probably right about the time they sold their PC division to Lenovo.
Furthermore, DisplayPort has only a negligble bandwidth lead over DVI. The total raw capacity of DisplayPort is 10.8 Gbps versus 9.9 Gbps for a dual-link DVI connection (or a "type B" HDMI connection).
The main reason for DisplayPort's existence is the onerous licensing terms for HDMI - and some technical requirements that make it harder to miniaturize and integrate the DVI/HDMI electronics.
Re:Bandwidth... (Score:3, Informative)
But if you believe VESA's hype, DisplayPort's bandwidth is "future extensible" while DVI's badwidth is maxed out at 9.9 Gbps (dual-link) per port. Ars Technica's article on DisplayPort [arstechnica.com] also mentions VESA's claim of higher bandwidth in the future.
Here's a spec comparison (includes bandwidth) of DisplayPort, LVDS, DVI,
Re:Bandwidth... (Score:2)
This seems like another band-aid patch to the problem, we are going to have larger than 3200x2400 soon and they are going to require multiple DisplayPort connections. Just doubling the bandwidth isn't going to cut it.
Re:Bandwidth... (Score:2)
That the screens can display it is fine.... (Score:2)
Re:That the screens can display it is fine.... (Score:2)
I will almost buy in to your idea that quad 1080p would suffice for everything. (And I think 2x 1080p is actually 4x the information).
I have a 30 inch dell LCD coming, 2560x1600, which is close to your 3840x2160 limit. I will see if it is the ultimate or close to it.
And they are putting 1080p DLP into high end samsung, so 1080p projectors should be coming down in the next few years. I can't wait. I have put off home HD, just wait a decade or two and they finally get it sorted.
No. (Score:2)
For larger displays, they just need something much better.. Also, relatively few businesses and home users are going to be using 3200x2400 displays... (I suppose some graphics artists might, but they ain't exactly the majority).
I suspect DRM is a bigger factor.
Backwards compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Backwards compatible (Score:2)
At this point, unless you're in some way dependent on the slightly more accurate color reproduction on CRTs, a good
Re:Backwards compatible (Score:2)
The ad agency I work at all use LCD for their print work, but none of them are cheap. You CAN get more than substantial flat screens, but you have to pay a premium, just like if you want a GOOD CRT.
Dual link DVI? (Score:2)
(I know because I own one of those 30" Apple flatscreens which requires it.)
Or is it like quad-link DVI?
Fiber connections (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fiber connections (Score:2)
Re:Fiber connections (Score:2)
From http://www.bnoack.com/index.html?http&&&www.bnoack
Data is transmitted by the transition minimized differential signaling (TMDS) protocol. The DVI specification calls for at least one TMDS link which includes three data channels (RGB) and one clock control channel.
DVI Specification 1.0: a TMDS link may operate at up to 165MHz. A single 10-bit TMDS link offers 1.65Gbps of bandwidth. This bandwidth is sufficient for a 1920 x 1080 screen resolu
Re:Fiber connections (Score:2)
Compression means an extra step, which means long delays; increased latency, not to mention more expense on the card and screens.
I sincerely doubt they're using compression of any kind.
Re:Fiber connections (Score:2)
There is no compression in the DVI spec. Compression wouldn't be practical at that kind of speed.
There are typically 3 of those 165MHz channels (R G and B) running at 8 bits per clock. 165 x 8 x 3 = 3960 million bits/s = 3.6Gb/s (in 1024s).
little hint in TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that is a real wild guess....I am just a skeptic by nature when it comes to this sort of thing - "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 7,963 times, shame on me" deal.. "New and Improved" - from big industry sources, most always translates as "a new conjob they have come up with and an improved way to keep sucking dollars out of your wallet"
Re:little hint in TFA... (Score:2, Insightful)
tune out to stay sane (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:little hint in TFA... (Score:3, Funny)
Crack one level, you still have to view it, only to meet the new craptacular connection and monitor, tough noogies again. Call it defense of profits in depth, hard wired.
I can crack all levels of the encryption with a little research, the right person, and a blowtorch.
Re:little hint in TFA... (Score:3, Interesting)
When the hardware manufacturers disallow open source software from running on the
Screwing it up again?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
LCD technology scales up much more cost effectively than CRT did so with the advent of LCD, the economics of big screen displays were about to get much better. At the time LCDs started becoming popular, I was working on a 21" CRT at 1600x1200. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of single link DVI, while 24, 26 and 28" monitors may have been cost effective to create, interfacing them with a computer was impractical. Instead you see the abomination of people sitting in front of 2 smaller monitors. Apple finally broke the chicken and egg problem with their 30" Apple Cinema display. They built dual link into their entire product line in preparation for it's launch. Dell now sells a 30" LCD for PCs as well and finally the latest generation of ultra-high end video cards now mostly support dual link. With this hurdle overcome, DVI is finally set to become a good digital display standard.
From what I understand this new standard will be incapable of driving monitors at resolutions above what these 30" displays can do now. That's nice but DVI is there and prepared to surpass that. Why create a new standard that limits display size to a resolution that was reached a year before the standard is even released, especially when dual link support is finally taking hold and the original limitations of DVI are starting to melt away. While I would like to see DVI replaced with something smaller and more capable, this new standard seems even more short sighted as the original DVI standard to me (since they don't even provide a path to higher resolutions).
Make it support up to 42" displays (20gb/s) and you've got a standard that makes sense. Otherwise.. lets just stick with DVI.
who can afford 42" (Score:2)
Why bother making a standard support something that only 1% of people willuse when they can just buy that extra $150 card
that supports the 3000x2000 42" res using some uber custom special dual/tripple dvi hybrid.
Re:who can afford 42" (Score:3, Insightful)
that supports the 3000x2000 42" res using some uber custom special dual/tripple dvi hybrid.
The problem is if a monitor requires a special custom video card and cable you have the chicken and egg problem again. The barrier to creating monitors bigger than 30" will be so high they won't be created at any price point unless/until there is a huge demand. Also, since such a system wouldn't
Re:who can afford 42" (Score:2)
Re:Screwing it up again?!? (Score:2)
WTF? I remember when the 30" Cinema Display was launched (June 2004) and they certainly did not build dual-link DVI into their entire product line "in preparation for it's launch." MacCentral's coverage of the WWDC 2004 keynote [macworld.com] explains it best:
Re:Screwing it up again?!? (Score:2)
Gigabyte's GV-RX16P256DE-RH (Radeon X1600 Pro) supports dual-link DVI and costs about $105 at Newegg.
Correct.. Support for dual link is starting to work it's way into the mainstream. The chicken and egg problem of the original DVI standard is over.
As I said in another comment, VESA claims that DisplayPort's bandwidth is "future e
stating the obvious... (Score:2)
Nevertheless, you seem to be happy with Dual-link DVI, but you want 20gb/s worth of bandwidth.
How about Dual-link Displayport?
Re:stating the obvious... (Score:2)
It doesn't exist.
Re:stating the obvious... (Score:2)
What's your point?
Re:Screwing it up again?!?-Location. (Score:2)
Have you looked at the specs for PCI-Express and AGP? The bandwidth between the video card and the rest of the computer is measured in GB/s. Firewire isn't nearly that fast. Even Firewire 800 would have trouble keeping up with an old PCI video card (at 133MB/s IIRC). Sure you might get away with it for Powerpoint at 42", but games would unplayable. Video would be impossible unless you did all the
Re:Screwing it up again?!?-Location. (Score:2)
point is unless you are doing fairly low load operations only you really don't save anything by piping graphics card level commands over the bus rather than pumpin
Re:Screwing it up again?!? (Score:2)
on the other hand the greater the pixel density the less noticable dead pixels will be.
when we reach 300dpi or so i suspect most people will stop caring about dead pixels as they will be invisible anyway. Unfortunately this will require a paradigm shift in software development. Traditionally UI elements have been measured in pixels because the pixel size has been what limits how small you can make stuff and keep it
digital interfaces (Score:2)
(it use to be that the rates required to draw a screen and the general purpose bus bandwisth were off by 3 magnitues...they are now on parity. machines have chang
Re:digital interfaces (Score:2)
(it use to be that the rates required to draw a screen and the general purpose bus bandwisth were off by 3 magnitues...they are now on parity. machines have changed, people haven't very much)
How is that relevant? No PC today can sustain a GB/s stream to the display. The limiting factor is usually the texels/s and, for the high-res stuff, bandwidth to the display, which hasn't been tied to bus bandwidth for 5 or more years.
Re:digital interfaces (Score:2)
Maybe in a laptop, but certainly not in a desktop.
Implementing a high-speed databus on a motherboard (such as PCI-E), is easy, since the distances are very short and the "wires" are the traces on the motherboard. It is a very controlled environment.
But you just can't take that same thing and run it down a 3 foot cable to a monitor.. In the GHZ range, the losses in a 3 foot cable would be severe, not to mention the inductive effects of the cable,
but... (Score:2, Funny)
The question is, Will it work with Linux?
Someone check my math, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
In which case it's already almost obsolete, given I can't even run my 23" at full resolution within legal DVI specs. This would barely run Apple's existing 30" display.
Guess we know at least one reason Apple didn't sign on.
Great new DRM'ed connnection interfaces... (Score:2, Informative)
now you may mod me into oblivion =/
Incompatible,Content protected (Score:2, Interesting)
Displayport is compatible with No prior standard.
It does carry audio,and no royalties will be due
to anyone but the Big Deal is Big Business.It supports bidirectional "optional" encryption protection schemes. And No prior standard is supported.
Simply replace everything you own, from the content to the machine.
And... Your display will now have to approve of your content.
Another added level of complexity designed to make things not work, which will likely result in
problem is not with the display size (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the fact that I can only have one display accelerated at a time. I purchased a second graphics card with its own accelerator to run my second display, thinking that this would get around the limitation -- but low and behold, on my P4-820 with 2GB of RAM, and an X800 XL + 9250, I still can't watch a DVD and play a DirectX game at the same time in full-motion. Or really do anything.
For a lot of people, the path to better computing is to add monitors -- it allows you to logically partition your work area spatially to a greater degree than just one monitor does. But if you can't do accelerated tasks on both monitors, you effectively only have 1 in a lot of situations.
That just doesn't cut it for me. Software rendering of DVDs, TV, videos, etc. all on my 2ndary display is not acceptable. But there's nothing I can do about it.
Re:problem is not with the display size (Score:2)
Games or programs that will run in a windowed mode work the best, both in windowed and full screen mode. If they wont then they probably wont play nice. Currently I watch a DVD on one while playing a game on the other. It is hot swapable, in other words you can drag you program from one monitor to the other on the fly without it crashing. You do nee
Re:problem is not with the display size (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows uses a magic color for its hardware accelerated overlay.
You can actually set this color on the fly, rather fun.
Any ways.
Notice that I said "a magic color".
Singular.
DOH.
Some companies (Nvidia, ATI) have developed
Royalties (Score:2)
From what I understand the mayor difference between Displayport and HDMI is money. If you build a HDMI port, then you must shell out some money for royalties, patents, etc. Displayport is a royalty-free solution. This allows its usage even in low-cost devices.
A second interesting feature is that it is designed to be used also for internal connections between the motherboard/graphics chip of a laptop and the LCD. The internal and external signals look the same. The external port will be identical to the int
double the bandwidth (Score:2)
Oh, and lets get the consumer to buy more stuff for no reason other then we want the money.
Re:Copied Apple again!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copied Apple again!! (Score:2)
Re:Copied Apple again!! (Score:4, Informative)
No, the entire industry as well as the Digital Display Working Group [wikipedia.org], of which Apple is not a part, calls it (their design) Dual-link DVI. It is used any monitor with a resolution above 1920x1200 and I think it's been available on nVidia and ATI cards for a few generations.
No, Apple does not invent as much stuff as you'd like to think.
Re:Copied Apple again!! (Score:2)
Apple does not invent all that much hardware wise.
Re:Copied Apple again!! (Score:2)
Take debugging for example; even on a large screen it's often hard to debug a program, especially if you have modal dialogs, and coding PHP or even plain HTML is just a lot easier when the screens are independent (you can be SURE that any debuggers you have will remain in view and that screen won't be taken over by a rogue window or dialogue), and ditto for working with graphics and video. I welcome the new DVI standard but
Dell doesnt have 50% of market share (Score:2)
Worldwide shipments totaled 57 million units, a 13.1 percent increase from a year ago. Most regions performed as expected, except for the U.S. PC market, which exceeded projections due to strong home desktop demand, Gartner said. Lower prices drove U.S. demand.
Re:2x Bandwidth is a magnitude too small (Score:2)
Re:Why at all a display specific bus? (Score:2)
1. Bandwidth
2. Realtime response
3. Low latency
They're also unidirectional.
PCI-E would give #1 but not #2 or #3.
So it makes sense that a digital bus specifically optimized for the nature of the traffic be designed.
Tom