Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Technology

New Display Interface Standard in the Works 248

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the yet-another-monitor-to-buy dept.
virgil_disgr4ce writes "The VESA standards group is designing a new display interface standard to replace both VGA and DVI. The new standard promises better bandwidth and interoperability for a ' broad application within computer monitors, TV displays, projectors, PCs and other sources of image content.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Display Interface Standard in the Works More

New Display Interface Standard in the Works

Comments Filter:

  • Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pieterh ( 196118 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:05AM (#13365981) Homepage
    ... submarine patents.

    I'll place money on the emergence of one or more patent claims on this, if it becomes a new standard.

    • Re:Wait for it... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'll place money on the emergence of one or more patent claims on this, if it becomes a new standard.

      I'm gonna take an educated guess here:

      • Microsoft: method for displaying a user interface on a display supporting said interface
      • Apple: method for making displays in pretty white cases
      • Amazon: method for the sale of displays supporting said interface online

  • Digital Restrictions Management (Score:4, Informative)

    by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:05AM (#13365982)
    The standard also paves the way for optional content protection, which is not automatically part of the standard, Lempesis said. Instead, a module could be added by manufacturers to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display--a feature surely to be a hit in Hollywood.

    Hey, at least its optional.

    • Re:Digital Restrictions Management (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hey, at least its optional.


      Optional unless you want to be compatible with Microsoft's new edition of Windows Media Player.

    • Re:Digital Restrictions Management (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bad_Feeling ( 652942 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:24AM (#13366021)
      The standard also paves the way for optional content protection, which is not automatically part of the standard, Lempesis said. Instead, a module could be added by manufacturers to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display--a feature surely to be a hit in Hollywood. Hey, at least its optional.

      "Optional" , but how long is it going to stay that way? I'm guessing this whole interface is setup so the monitor won't show media unless it is "authenticated". So if you pop in a Divx rip, and manage to hack windows vista bad enough that it will play media without connecting to a license server, the monitor will be the last measure available to the *AA. If the monitor drivers havent been cracked as well and cant connect to said license server, it will show only a black patch where the video is supposed to be. This interface is merely another way to take control of the machine out of the user's hands.

      Ofcourse all the exteme DRM in vista is "optional" now, but it only takes one person to flip a switch at MS and the entire system is locked down like a maximum security prison.

      /going to stick with SVGA

      • If you have a homemade movie you must be able to play that. So it looks to me that a monitor with DRM is pretty much not doing anything to stop you from watching your ripped movie which has the same parameters as your homemade movie. The screendrivers do not need to be hacked for that.

        The DRM probably has use in companies like for protecting documents, but I can not imagine how yet, and why that should happen at monitor level. Maybe a document can be sent around and you can open it but not display it? Pret
      • I can't see how this will work without the cooperation from the drivers.

        I mean, how the Monitor will know that the content of a certain window is a movie being played?

        Also, if it's optional probably your old, drm-less, video drivers will work just fine...

        I don't think Apple will adopt this DRM extension, due their past decisions favoring user rights... And I don't think the Xorg folks would cripple their drivers either.

        Microsoft better be carefull, or they'll see lots of people buying a MacMini, or building
        • I think by 'optional' here, it means that manufacturers will be able to choose either no DRM, or mandatory DRM. That is, the wire protocol can optionally support encryption, it is up to the graphics card and monitor as to whether they require it.

          Of course in the DMR case it needs cooperation from the drivers. The point is that the cable between the computer and monitor carries only an encrypted signal so that illegally tampering (as it surely will be) with the signal at this point (say, by plugging the

        • I can't see how this will work without the cooperation from the drivers.

          Yes, that's exactly the idea. Google for "Protected Media Path", drivers will be cryptograhically verified and revocable if needs be, using hardware TCPA. The authenticated driver must then authenticate the video card, and must authenticate the displays too.

          See this recent Ed Felten [freedom-to-tinker.com] article and the linked to Microsoft white paper on Protected Media Path [microsoft.com].

          Monitor will know that the content of a certain window is a movie being played?

          Caus
      • This already happens when trying to play a DVD on a laptop while sending the video on TV-OUT. You'll see the desktop background on the TV screen, while the DVD video is replaced by a blue screen.

        And this even happens to downloadable movies (like archive.org) as well.

    • Optional (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 )
      Its 'optional', if you dont want to view any of the 'optional' content.

      Such as streaming media, DVD, excel...

      • Re:Optional (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @10:05AM (#13366246) Journal
        Assuming, of course, that you use a compliant player. If you use something like VLC, then it will simply not check that it is playing to an `authorised' monitor. Of course, this may result in more legal pressure being applied to VLC and similar projects...

    • Re:Digital Restrictions Management (Score:4, Informative)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @12:05PM (#13366618) Homepage
      Longhorn to Require Monitor-Based DRM [slashdot.org]

      Aero Glass experience in Longhorn will be available only if the related hardware capabilities are present on the PC system supported by a signed driver based on the Longhorn Display Driver Model. [microsoft.com]

      If you are not using a Microsoft approved and signed driver to fully lock down and enforce the DRM system then Longhorn/Vista LOCKS YOU OUT OF THE FULL GRAPHICS INTERFACE MODE. You get dumped back to the minimal desktop interface mode and I'm pretty sure the entire "security system" gets locked out as well. In other words you get dumpted back to the minimal desktop interface mode AND any software using the Wonderful new security system gets locked out. Half the software on your computer may drop dead.

      But don't worry, it's all optional and all opt-in. Of course if you do not opt-in then don't expect anything to actually work anymore. Oh, and it's not Microsoft's fault. It's the software authors and the media file publishes and the websites that choose to use Microsoft's new Security System and it is THEY who decide that the software and media files and websites will refuse to work unless you opt-in to full lockdown mode.

      Oh, and then there's Microsoft's Microsoft's Network Access Protection Architectures, specifically compatible with the Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Network Connect. [trustedcom...ggroup.org] Sure it will be a couple of years before this might become a signifigant issue, but if and when it is deployed... well it wouldn't be Microsoft doing anything to you... it would be your ISP choosing to use Microsoft's NAP system and your ISP choosing to refuse you an internet connection unless you are running a properly locked down system with an approved operating system and with all of the latest patches and with an approved and mandatory Firewall and with and approved and mandatory VirusScanner. You see your ISP just wants to protect you against viruses and worms and to protect their network.

      In fact the term they use for this sort of policy is that they are checking the "health" of your computer before allowing you network access. They need the security system tyo be active to do the "health check", and of course only a fully locked down computer is "healthy".

      But it's OK. The DRM system... correction the security system... it's all optional and opt-in. And if you don't opt-in and all of your software refuses to run and you are locked out all of the new filetypes and your ISP refuses to give you a network connection, well that's OK. That was your choice. Opting-in is purely optional. Microsoft isn't trying to force anything on to anyone.

      -

  • better interoperability through DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pepax ( 748182 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:05AM (#13365983)
    I doubt it.

  • And the money line: (Score:5, Funny)

    by FuturePastNow ( 836765 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:06AM (#13365984)
    DisplayPort is expected to accelerate adoption of protected digital outputs on PCs to support viewing high definition and other types of protected content through an optional content protection capability

    Just what I always wanted.

  • New standard (Score:3, Interesting)

    by michaelhood ( 667393 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:07AM (#13365986)
    Is this going to include that new DRM-inspired video technology that MS has been touting? I wondered how that would reach the market. I didn't RTFA, and I'm too tired to Google. Don't mod this up, mod up the informed replies. :) G'night.

    • Re:New standard (Score:5, Informative)

      by HD Webdev ( 247266 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:19AM (#13366013) Homepage Journal
      The standard also paves the way for optional content protection, which is not automatically part of the standard, Lempesis said. Instead, a module could be added by manufacturers to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display--a feature surely to be a hit in Hollywood.

      So, VESA is apparently dodging DRM yet the standard inherently allows DRM to be used. (Which is not surprising or unexpected)

  • DVI gone already? DRM makes it mark (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Toby The Economist ( 811138 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:09AM (#13365990)
    It's only been three years...

    It's not too surprising, though. DRM has to extend to display hardware for it to be any use.

    Right now I'm a Windows users and I have been for many years. I've stayed with W2K because I didn't much like the direction XP took. I'm pretty sure that there is going to come a point in the future where I move to Linux, because the control the Windows OS would have over my PC is unacceptable.

    Unfortunately, the majority of PC users have no idea that this issue even exists.

    --
    Toby

    • Re:DVI gone already? DRM makes it mark (Score:4, Informative)

      by Crixus ( 97721 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:37AM (#13366044)
      I remember hearing that they were going to integrate DRM at the BIOS level in some way. If they do that, then it seems like they might be able to have control in some (perhaps small) way no matter which OS you're running.

          I have no idea how they would implement this, but I do recall hearing it.
      • TCPI. It's a chipset that allows for encryption, etc. Already on some of Intel's reference boards; Apple's dev models have TCPI chips, though they seem to only use them for Rosetta at the moment
      • What do you think processor ID was supposed to do? Lock your content to your processor... althoguh they 'claimed' it was to authenticate you to your bank and whatnot, but really- nothing secure is going to depend on a physical machine (laptop, desktops in an office, etc) so you'd need a password anyway...

        It's all just a matter of identifying you uniquely for DRM to work.

        -M

    • That's the truth (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @10:00AM (#13366231) Homepage
      Unfortunately, the majority of PC users have no idea that this issue even exists.

      And it'll be a big surprise to the masses when it gets here. I can almost hear the calls now. "Hey, why won't this movie play? It ran alright on my old computer." Welcome to Windows World, buckwheat. They'll be offended, huffy for a little while, have a passive-aggressive little snit by complaining to people who can't do anything about it. But after a while they'll go on their grumbly way because they haven't been investing in any alternative, learning a different OS or trying out open source alternatives.

      I see the same things in my business customers all the time. Except I get to remind them that I told them it was coming a year ago and they go, "Oh, right. But I thought they were going to extend support for that another year?" No, sorry. The next question is usually, "Well, how much is it going to cost?" Then I get to listen to their passive-aggressive snit aimed at me, like I have some command over what MSFT does.

      If you want off the MSFT treadmill you have to plan it, start experimenting with alternatives and roll out the change in a controlled environment. Getting huffy when you plug your new PC in and something doesn't work anymore just annoys those of us in the business.

  • Ah, the old "DRM is a *feature*" argument (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adamwright ( 536224 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:09AM (#13365991) Homepage
    From Vesa's own statement...

    DisplayPort is expected to accelerate adoption of protected digital outputs on PCs to support viewing high definition and other types of protected content

    Because as we know, every consumer loves paying for new technology, the main purpose of which is to remove features they already have! Though saying that, 99% of media purchasers will no doubt think that giving away rights is a fair compromise for not having to use an audio *and* video cable.

    • "99% of media purchasers will no doubt think that giving away rights is a fair compromise for not having to use an audio *and* video cable."

      But it "refreshes images instead of reloading them, which makes for better performance"!!

      We've already lost...

  • Who is it for? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:11AM (#13365993) Homepage
    It's simpler.
    It requires fewer wires and stuff.
    It's cheaper to make.
    It (optionally) supports DRM.

    Sounds awesome for the manufacturers and content providers. But what do I, as a consumer, get that I don't get from DVI or HDMI?

    Other than a bill for a new monitor next time I upgrade my graphics card..

    • Re:Who is it for? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 )
      HDMI supports DRM too, and is pretty much going to be the standard in the future.

      I really don't see the point of this 'new' interface.

      • Re:Who is it for? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ergo98 ( 9391 )
        HDMI supports DRM too, and is pretty much going to be the standard in the future.

        DVI supports DRM too - it's HDCP, and it's the same protocol on either a DVI or a HDMI wire.

        Was this story actually printed 2 years ago and they were talking about HDMI versus DVI, because I see nothing that differentiates it from HDMI (which is audio and video on a single cable, HDCP, and so on).
        • HDCP isn't in the DVI standard though. Some makers are putting it in because the video section of the HDMI standard simply builds on DVI, using the same signalling and such, and electrically, only adding new color spaces, HDCP and other, more minor changes.

          HDMI does add audio lines, though its full potential isn't tapped. It also adds full-system A/V box control, so devices can work together if you so choose, like your third party DVR can change the channel of the satellite box to record a show, or any re
    • I also think VESA is doing this so they could support 1920x1200 resolution video running in non-interlaced mode easier. I believe that 1080-line progressive-scan 16:9 aspect ratio HDTV has this resolution (though someone here please correct me on this if necessary).

  • From the artikel (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ruud Althuizen ( 835426 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:25AM (#13366025)
    New DisplayPort Standard for PCs, Monitors, TV Displays and Projectors Moves from Promoter Group to Video Electronics Standards Association

    VESA to Finalize, Administer DisplayPort, Provide a Forum for Extensions

    MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 16, 2005--The newly-developed DisplayPort(TM) interface proposal, which has been designed to simplify display interfaces in computer and consumer electronics systems, has been turned over to the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) for finalization and approval as a standard.

    In May, VESA announced the DisplayPort development program by a group of industry-leading companies dedicated to creating a new digital display interface specification for broad application within computer monitors, TV displays, projectors, PCs and other sources of image content.

    "The plan in May was to submit a comprehensive version of the interface proposal to VESA during the third quarter for ratification and adoption," said Ian Miller, chairman of VESA. "The group has met its internal timetable and delivered to us a very comprehensive specification, which VESA will now administer and provide a forum for future revisions."

    DisplayPort allows high quality audio to be available to the display device over the same cable as the video signal. It delivers true plug-and-play with robust interoperability, and is cost-competitive with existing digital display interconnects. Designed to be available throughout the industry as an open, extensible standard, DisplayPort is expected to accelerate adoption of protected digital outputs on PCs to support viewing high definition and other types of protected content through an optional content protection capability, while enabling higher levels of display performance.

    DisplayPort enables a common interface approach across both internal connections, such as interfaces within a PC or monitor, and external display connections, including interfaces between a PC and monitor or projector, between a PC and TV or between a device such as DVD player and TV display. The standard includes an optional digital audio capability so high definition digital audio and video can be streamed over the interface, and it provides performance scalability so the next generation of displays can feature higher color depths, refresh rates, and display resolutions. It also features a small, user-friendly connector optimized for use on thin profile notebooks in addition to allowing multiple connectors on a graphics card.

    Layered, Modular Architecture Includes Main Link and Auxiliary Channel

    DisplayPort incorporates a Main Link, a high-bandwidth, low-latency, unidirectional connection supporting isochronous stream transport. One stream video with associated audio is supported in Version.1.0, but DisplayPort is seamlessly extensible, enabling support of multiple video streams. Version 1.0 also includes an Auxiliary Channel to provide consistent-bandwidth, low-latency, bi-directional connectivity with Main Link management, and device control based on VESA's E-DDC, E-EDID, DDC/CI and MCCS standards. The Link configuration enables true "Plug-and-Play."

    The Main Link bandwidth enables data transfer at up to 10.8 Gbits/second using a total of four lanes.

    The promoter group based their development efforts on the premise that the PC industry requires a ubiquitous digital interface with optional content protection that can be deployed widely at minimum cost to enable broad access to premium content, according to Miller.

    As higher performance display and source technologies are introduced, the demands on interface bandwidth expand and the problem will become even more acute soon with demands for more colors, higher resolutions, and higher refresh rates. The DisplayPort standard's high initial bandwidth is designed to scale to even higher bandwidths to accommodate future display requirements.

  • Second Verse, Same As The First (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NBarnes ( 586109 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:34AM (#13366042)
    Booooooooring.

    Because there aren't any Linux media hackers in the world who'll do a rip app to fool media apps into thinking it's outputting to a DRM-protected one-of-these and instead it just gets dumped to a data file for P2P.

    I mean, what are the odds? DeCSS was just a fluke.

    Or, to be less snide... yes, clearly this is an attempt to create a DRM-enabled display standard, the idea being to prevent people from intercepting the unencoded, unprotected signal coming out of your video card. But, as always, the client is in the hands of the enemy. All the information needed to snap this like a twig is already present on the box.

    The only way DRM will ever work is government-enforced computer controls and white-listing of 'approved' software, with unapproved software being locked out (yes, there are ways even around that, but at that point it's too much trouble for John Doe to set up the whitewashing needed to run an unapproved box that looks clean to Big Brother). And even that will just force uncontrolled boxes off the Internet (as we know it) onto grey or black wireless networks outside the reach of governments.

  • Some background on the politics of this standard (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:40AM (#13366047)
    One of the biggest reasons that many companies want a standard outside of DVI and HDMI is the fact that Silicon Image and Intel basically control the show when it comes to digital interfaces. Intel needs to be mentioned because, although Silicon Image appears to spearhead the standards and controls key patents (e.g. TMDS), Intel exerts a high level of influence due to partial ownership of Silicon Image and DCP LLC [digital-cp.com]. In fact, if you look at DCP LLC's address at the bottom of its web page, it resides inside Intel!

    When DVI first came out, it was in a camp that was separate from VESA, the independent standards body responsible for the video signalling standards for PCs. VESA had been looking for a digital alternative for years but the Digital Display Working Group [ddwg.org] promoted DVI through some of the bigger manufacturers of both computer displays and manufacturers of electronics of those displays. DVI was ok but it was plagued with problems like a poor quality connector, limited cable length and very poor standards compliance. This largely limited DVI's adoption in the market for a number of years. The copy protection standard, HDCP, was added in the usual fashion of trying to "protect" the content providers. As for the standards compliance, Silicon Image knew it had screwed up and so created a compliance test center. The irony here is that Silicon Image's own first generation receivers don't even work with some of its own transmitters!

    Though most consumer electronics manufacturers were included in the DDWG, at least one was conspicuously absent during the formation of HDMI [hdmi.org], which is backwards compatible with DVI but has a smaller and more robust connector and more geared for consumer electronics rather than PC applications. That absent company was Samsung, and Ian Miller of Samsung was quite important in the VESA organization. VESA had continued during the time of HDMI's creation and ramp-up of making a new standard, the latest one being NAVI [vesa.org] that died on the vine. Having been excluded, and knowing Samsung's growing presence in many markets and the stranglehold of Silicon Image and Intel with respect to patents and copyright protection control with limp alternatives, I believe that the current companies within DisplayPort led by Ian Miller decided to take the initiative and move forward with an independent DisplayPort standard and independent copy protection mechanism. The new copy protection scheme, called DPCP, is administered by Philips rather than Intel.

    The physical layer of DisplayPort is largely based on PCI Express in order to leverage the intellectual property already within these companies and avoid licensing and royalties associated with Silicon Image's TMDS and Intel's HDCP. One very interesting point for all /.ers - the interface standard is optionally encrypted with DPCP, but it can apply to every single link both outside and inside the display! This means that you may not be able to crack your panel open and hack the hardware inside without a hacked encryption key (which is heavily guarded at all points within its acquisition and programming into devices). Even with HDCP, it would be a simple matter in a flat panel to take the unencrypted LVDS output and fabricate a small board with an unencrypted DVI digital output for HDTV. Therefore, don't look at DisplayPort as anyone's savior. It also remains to be seen if people will accept yet another display connector for their PCs and the resultant fragmentation, though both ATI and Nvidia are on board DisplayPort.

    In short, don't expect a whole lot of advantages for the end user here. The politics of the display industry are significant and the average consumer will continue to suffer as these politics play out in the grander scheme of business.
    • The way I see it, it is WAY too late to make a completely new standard, with DVI being so entrenched. At least HDMI was based on DVI, so cheap adapters can be bought.

      The sad thing about this one though is that a video chip maker (ATI) and a couple panel makers (Philips & Samsung) are involved, so I hope they don't try to push out the DVI and HDMI standards arbitrarily, otherwise, I'll just buy competing products.
    • Hmm... the LCD panel HAS to be driven somehow.

      The individual pixels HAVE to be driven.

      It would be possible to read off the panel controller, as there HAS to be somewhere that it's decrypted, and that's the last possible place.

  • The Purpose of the interface? (Score:3, Informative)

    by __aajwxe560 ( 779189 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @08:47AM (#13366061)
    So the main reasoning this group is forwarding this new "interface standard" is not to improve your video quality, nor to make the cable smaller or easier to manage. Sure, those certainly are nice features, but it is not why they developed this new standard. From VESA:
    "The promoter group [vesa.org] based their development efforts on the premise that the PC industry requires a ubiquitous digital interface with optional content protection that can be deployed widely at minimum cost to enable broad access to premium content, according to Miller. "
  • Encrypted data to be legitimately useful has to be decoded. Once the first part of a system decodes it, the content is in the clear and the function of the decoder can be debugged.

    While it may be the intent of the designers of this system to have a chain from drive to display that keeps encryption intact, there will be a need to decode earlier...and that is likely where it will break.

    Look at how DVDs were decoded; an OEM's software was debugged and there were the keys! Once the general mechanism was k

  • Please, no more! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @09:00AM (#13366086) Homepage
    • VGA
    • DVI
    • HDMI
    • Composite video
    • Component video (YCbCr)
    • Component video (YPbPr)
    • Component video (RGB)
    • S-Video

    This is getting ridiculous!

    My TV is already a sloppy mess full of connections. I've spent hours in the store explaining to customers (and salesdrones) what these mean and what they need. Half of those connectors should never even have been invented in the first place because a better standard already existed (Ex: VGA). I hope consumers send a huge backlash over this, because displays are expensive, and converter boxes are hard to find and even more expensive.
    • What's even more interesting is when one of these standards get discontinued, future TVs will probably still have to support them.

    • ex: VGA? (Score:3, Informative)

      by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 )
      Which one is VGA (HDI-15) better than?

      Not DVI or HDMI. VGA cannot carry digital signals like they can.

      Perhaps you mean Composite or component? All 3 component formats and composite all predate VGA & the HDI-15. Component video (YPbPr) was used on Sony's Betacam (not to be confused with Beta) in 1982. Component RGB was around at least as long. VGA (HDI-15) came out in 1987.

      S-Video (Y/C) also predates VGA, although the 4-pin connector doesn't. Perhaps you used the Y/C connectors on your Amiga or C-64 to h

  • if it has DRM on it.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21, 2005 @09:00AM (#13366087)
    they can shove it directly up their ass.

    they are supposed to be a technical engineering standards group DRM has nothing to do with what they do and if it is any part of the new specification then it will be proof that they sold out big time and should not be held as a respectable standards group anymore.

    DRM = proof of a group becoming sell-outs.
  • So is this intending to rival the HDMI [hdmi.org] connector? VESA's will have to support encryption and DRM protocols for it to be taken up by the consumer digital video and television developers. It think they will have a hard ride.

  • /.ers unite...we do have a voice! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @09:21AM (#13366129)
    All these posts seem like there is only one option...the bend over and take it option.

    But there is another....

    You can vote with your wallet. don't buy this crap. If you are in a coprorate purchasing position, don't buy it for your company. I would bet that ALL of us were Windows users in the early 90's....maybe a little OS/2 Warp and BeOS here and there...but when MS didn't give us what we wanted, we switched to Linux and Mac OS X.

    That is the power we hold. It is the ONLY voice we have as consumer and it is the most powerful one. If you feel usage rights and too restrictive or don't like the idea of "upgrading" to a restrictive system then don't and tell sales people why you aren't givign them a commission.
    • .but when MS didn't give us what we wanted, we switched to Linux and Mac OS X.

      Out of the frying pan and into the fire? No thanks!
    • If you are in a coprorate purchasing position, don't buy it for your company.

      Yeah, right! And how would you explain to your pointy haired boss that he wont be able to play "Windows Vista Solitaire 2007"?
      • Eh? My PHB plays Windows XP Spider Solitare, on linux, all the time.

        Wine, baby, Wine....

        I do get the occasional complaint that the flicker from the 'H for Hint' command doesn't always show up, but thats very minor ;-)

        Tell the truth. Say you have ~60% application compatibility, with 1/10 the cost, and no more anti-virus/spyware subscription.

        You'd be surprised: The key to convincing non-techies to switch from Windows to Linux, especially non-computer literate people, is explaining things simply.

        Supposed 'powe
    • "Once upon a time" (until last year or so) DVI was supposed to simply, slowly supersede VGA and include its signals on the connector - the way to do it right: don't break compatibility for no legitimate reason.

      Patents and paranoia are bad arguments to make consumers turn their living rooms into "DRM Detention Centers" - and even pay for their own prisons.

      You can vote with your wallet. don't buy this crap. (...)

      That is the power we hold. It is the ONLY voice we have as consumer and it is the most powerful

  • Dammit. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by solios ( 53048 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @09:24AM (#13366137) Homepage
    I'm going to need a THIRD monitor adapter?

    I'm currently using a DVI -> VGA adapter with a VGA -> Mac adapter plugged into it so I can run my 20" Apple-branded trinitron, which I've been using for years.

    Some of us can't afford to buy new monitors just because the connectors change. :P

    • Re:Dammit. (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      It's a shame the Apple Display Connector wasn't more widely adopted. It put DVI, power and USB in the same connector, which was very convenient - you could leave your keyboard and mouse connected to the monitor and just have one cable going to your computer. Adding FireWire and digital audio to the connector would have been ideal.
      • Until you get a power spike and BLAM! there goes your damned video card (disclaimer : my g5 was smoked this way), maybe.

        Oh, and try finding a modernish multihead Mac video card without an ADC jack. That's another damned adapter! My home machine is dual head, both original oldass Apple monitors - so I'm going dvi -> vga -> mac and ADC -> vga -> mac - using a VGA twiddler to adapt an apple connection to an apple connection, go technology!

        Grrr.

        ADC is nothing new - remember Applevision?* It's the
  • Can it perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?

  • comparison with LCD transition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @09:47AM (#13366207) Homepage Journal
    From the article:

    > A similar situation emerged in 1998 when consumers were initially hesitant
    > to adopt a transition from CRT to LCD screens.

    I don't think this was the reason for a hesitant transition of LCD,
    which would work with existing interfaces. It was the price, which was
    initially too high. For me, the prizes have only come down far enough
    in 2001.

    A new monitor interface will take longer to adapt to because it requires
    both new graphics cards and new monitors and new computer projectors.

    For me, an important transition was from VGA to DVI. Since my monitors
    are feeded digitally, I have a much clearer picture. Still, I'm required
    to use VGA, when using a video projector.

    As others have pointed out, the better refresh rate or bandwidth is hardly the
    reason for proposing a new standard. DRM implementations which promise to close
    an analog hole, are the driving force. I doubt that encrypting the video signal
    will do any good for the refresh rate. So, don't expect consumers to fall for it.
    • Consumers *will* fall for it. Because the average consumer is a sheep. Your "early adopter" technoids will pay the outrageous prices for the product, the "Keep-up-with-the-Joneses" neighbors and friends will do the same after the prices comes down a little (or WorstBuy, RadioShanty, or CompUseless has a GREAT sale,) then the rest of the sheople will because, well, everyone else they know has it.

      Personally, I plan to be the breaking factor in the "everyone else I know has it" bullshit. I won't have it. I

  • Where is the A/V bus? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreshMeat-BWG ( 541411 ) <bengoodwynNO@SPAMme.com> on Sunday August 21, 2005 @10:52AM (#13366397) Homepage
    Great another standard. Does that mean that my next TV will just have one more input on it?

    I won't get excited until someone develops an audio/video bus where you can connect multiple input devices and multiple output devices to the same bus.

    I am disgusted at purchasing a TV where I can hookup one device via HDMI and one device via component video. So just what is one to do when they have two HDMI input devices and they want to view them both on their TV?

    With a well designed A/V bus, I should be able to daisy chain several input and output devices to the bus. The streams on the bus should identify themselves descriptively. So, when I am changing the input source on my TV it says "Apex DVD player" or "Motorola DVR", etc. The TV shouldn't determine how many of which types of devices can be connected--rather the bandwidth of the bus should determine how many output devices can be active at once. Beyond that, if an output device has no input devices requesting the signal, why should it be using any bandwidth?

    So my DVD player, DVR, Computer, TV, and audio receiver are all hooked up to the same bus. My DVD player is playing a DVD, but noone is watching it. The audio receiver is tuned into the audio channel of the DVD. In this case, only the DVD's audio channel would be on the bus. Simple bandwidth allocation based on demand. Devices can broadcast that a signal is available without actually broadcasting the signal. Then the TV is turned on and someone is watching the DVD. Now the DVD's audio and video are being broadcast. And even though the DVD audio is destined for two devices, it is only broadcast once on the bus. Combinations could be created where say you are watching the video of your computer on your TV and you are listening to the audio from a CD player, etc.

    • For some reason this all sounds too good to be true. I could never imagine this stuff actually happening, politically.

      I think that's sad.

    • Re:Where is the A/V bus? (Score:5, Informative)

      by adrew ( 468320 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @01:05PM (#13366814)
      Oh, they tried. Most high-end home theater equipment from a few years ago included a FireWire port. It's possible to daisy-chain everything together using only a single cable between devices. But, unfortunately, it has largely died out due to the lack of DRM.

      Another benefit of FireWire is that it is possible to connect a cable box to your Mac and save digital versions of shows. That's probably another reason why it died.

      Still another benefit is that you can connect a MiniDV camcorder directly to a compatible TV over FireWire.

      It's kinda sad that this elegant technology wasn't embraced due to the lack of DRM.

      Check out this pic [uta.edu] of a home theater system. I found it a few years ago when I was in school. On the left is a regular home theater; on the right is a FireWire home theater.

  • All I need is a big screen with just 1G ethernet plug and X11 protocol.

  • What about HDMI? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oz0ne ( 13272 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @11:11AM (#13366444) Homepage
    HDMI > Bandwidth than DVI, works for both monitors and televisions, BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE with DVI.

    I don't have anything that can even handle 1080p yet. 90% of television isn't even broadcasting progressively, let alone HD res. I can't buy DVD's in HD yet.

    Why do I need another cable/TV when I am far from fully utilizing the one I have?
  • I can't even tell the difference between VGA and DVI. And the only compatibility difference I have ever noticed (YMMV) between VGA and DVI is that some video modes are not available through DVI.

    I suspect this new standard is driven by a desire for forcing DRM on users, not compatibility or meaningful improvements in quality. And the display manufacturers love it because everybody has to buy everything again. Unless we get DisplayPort-to-VGA adapters, of course...

  • But can it replace the ubiquitous video cable? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Sunday August 21, 2005 @04:25PM (#13367630) Homepage

    What I am looking for is a way to carry video all over a new house I will be building in a few years. It turns out DVI and HDMI simple cannot run these distances. And besides that, the cabling itself is very expensive.

    The traditional analog way to run video is over a 75 ohm coaxial cable, either as a baseband composite video with 2 separate audio cables, or as baseband component video (3 cables for Y, Pr, and Pb channels), or as modulated carriers suitable for cable or over-the-air (OTA) tuners. But the big question is how to advance home video distribution to the digital age. DVI and HDMI simply can't do it. I doubt DisplayPort will be able to do so, either for similar reasons. What could workd is the SDI (Serial Data Interface) and related HD upgrades used by the broadcast industry. The cabling for SDI is simple high grade 75-ohm coax and could even run a kilometer or more. The catch is that SDI is not cheap, despite the fact that technologically, it isn't really any more difficult to do than other digital technologies (it just isn't widely deployed to bring down costs). SDI also does not include any content protection methods (some would say this is a good thing).

    This tendency for manufacturers to keep making all new types of connectors, and cables, and pinouts, for each new type of interfacing (USB and Firewire are other examples in a different context) just seems silly. Whatever needs to be sent or exchanged needs to simply be defined in terms of using a data bit stream, which can then be sent or exchanged over any of a number of types of physical interfaces. Follow that up with some simple high speed serial hardware interfaces (a metallic one over twisted pair, another matallic one over coax, and a fiber optic one). Done right, one type of simple and common cabling and connectors can do things from keyboards to video displays to hard drives, and even do so over a few kilometers of distance for point-to-point connections.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close