[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Dell's DisplayPort Folly here

[mtrover]

USB3 using DisplayLink technology will make all of these single use things like DisplayPort still born in 2009. Using this method means a only a single cable is needed for syncing your IPOD and sending graphics to a 30-inch and beyound display.

[4doggy]

Why I have never done business with Dell ......let me count the ways.

[user377047]

It would be nice if all these manufactures and Microsoft would just work on a computer that is hack,spyware,and malware, root kit proof, so a person could spend more time on productivity and not on making sure all the anti-virus and antispyware etc. were up to date. Then they wouldn't need to include all the bells and whistles on a computer to sell it.

[LindaA]

"Wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, if everything used just HDMI?" That question you pose, Tom, sums it all up in the proverbial nutshell, especially the "...less expensive..." part. Less expensive for the consumer also means less money for the manufacturer, hence, a smaller bottom line, and what business wants to see a smaller bottom line. Ultimately, it's all about money. Of course, if enough of Dell's customers feel the way you do about paying for obsolete technology that's being foisted upon them, they'll buy their computers from other manufacturers, and if that happens, and Dell sees their buyers going to the competition over this DisplayPort issue, then maybe they'll rethink DisplayPort.

[VladTheImpaler1990]

Ya like the amd and ati

[FiOSDave]

Of course, $10,000 per year squeezes out the small innovators.

What's to say that when HDMI becomes "universal", they won't

charge CONSUMERS a yearly usage fee?

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from...

I am guessing that DisplayPort would allow the highest bandwidth

available without hobbling the consumer like HDMI is doing.

If that is the case, bring on DisplayPort!



Dave

[slhan]

For the lowdown on why DisplayPort is needed by the PC industry, and why HDMI isn’t the best choice, check out Bruce Montag's post on the Dell blog.

[shanedr]

You're wrong! First, $10,000 is too high a fee for small companies, a small registration fee would be sufficient. Second, the no fee for DisplayPort is much better for large companies. Third, the industry can do a gradual switchover to DisplayPort and if DisplayPort is a better system it will have a better demand. Last, as long as both are supported for as long as needed for HDMI to fall by the wayside then DisplayPort would be far more welcome.

[villanim]

There are a few reasons as to why DisplayPort is superior to HDMI (believe me, I am no fan off Dell and it kills me siding with them on this issue), one is that unlike HDMI, in th ePC spec, DP allows video and sound over teh same cable, it is optional in HDMI, Two, fiber optics is coming to DP soon, which means you can have longer video cables then the current ten foot max for DP and fiber will give you a cleaner signal then copper. Third, future implementations of the spec can be scaled upwards to support the
signals of a monitor’s embedded microphone, USB hub, webcam, etc.—over
the same, single cable that carries your video signal. With HDMI, you
would need additional cables to be connected to your PC for those
devices. Fourth, DP does away with a layer of complexity and enables much
physically sleeker (about the width of a laptop lid) and less-expensive
monitors. HDMI was designed as an external digital A/V connection to HDTVs.

[pcwsk4]

Display port will catch on. Sure, USB is more standard, but with Dell pushing it, it can't fall flat.

[pcwstinks]

Wow,... I HAD to register to reply to this little piece of deception....

Saying that we don't need DisplayPort because we have HDMI is like saying we don't need to breathe because we eat instead... they satisfy two very different needs.

HDMI is intended to replace older analog and digital connections specifically for TVs and living room type multimedia devices. It was made to handle specifically digital HD video and sound.

DisplayPort - on the other hand - is a new, open standard for external displays for both desktops and notebooks AND built-in displays inside notebooks, and other smaller devices. It has added features not found in HDMI like the ability to use the SINGLE DisplayPort connection to connect a monitor and any other built in peripherals (like a WEBCAM, MICROPHONE, SPEAKERS, etc.)... over the single cable. It also allows manufacturers to RELOCATE (not completely remove, as you state) parts of the display that would traditionally have to be in close proximity to the actual LCD, giving the ability to make screens thinner (very desirable in the eyes of most consumers…). It unifies the previously varied technologies (VGA, DVI, LVDS) that were required for the many slightly differing hardware combinations (internal/external displays).

To say that Dell is the only company pushing this technology is ludicrous. The Montevina notebook platform launched today by Intel also pushes the standard, adding main support for the output. Nvidia and ATI both plan to support the standard in upcoming (and already released) graphics cards. The whole computer industry more or less agrees on this issue; Dell is just being the juggernaut for once and implementing the standard before others.

I wonder, if industry decisions on new technologies were up to people like you, would we still be using DOS? Or VGA? Or USB 1.0? Current display interface options are no longer satisfactory, and to suggest that we should stop all progress solely for the purpose of maintaining legacy support for decades-old standards is ridiculous. (What would happen if the rest of the world took up this opinion, too? – eh, a 6% efficiency rating for photovoltaics is good enough, let’s stop working to improve it…?)

And you write for what blog??? No wonder I don’t read it or remember it. Either you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are being purposefully deceptive. In either case I have no idea why your articles are being published. I guess we are talking PC World, though. I remember when I thought I might be interested in a subscription; then I read other articles like this and realized the writers are a bunch of disconnected whiners who constantly complain and don’t contribute anything (in fact are deleterious) to the world of technology news coverage.

[zootjeff]

I think this article is a typical knee jerk reaction to the fact that "yes, we now have to deal with another connector for a while".

Dell posted a good response to this here:

http://direct2dell.c...2/19/46464.aspx

You say that people won't want to have DisplayPort only monitor connectors?

Well there are technical cost advantages. The way Intel implements DisplayPort in the chipsets, you use the same pins on the North Bridge to drive either the PCIe x16 port or the DisplayPort signals. For your 400 dollar system, you save money by not needing to use the TMDS converter chips, and if it goes right to the LCD, you don't buy the scan converter chips for the monitor either. Yes you can't plug your DisplayPort only monitor into your VGA port based old PC, but you don't care, you paid 400 dollars for your PC, it works just fine and was cheaper and now you get more for your money to accomplish the same result. You will always be able to buy monitors with more or less display connectors, and yes you will be able to choose if you want to pay for it or not.

HDMI is not latching. That is important for a lot of people.

[naraemer]

HDMI seems to have been, at best, a patchwork solution that caught on because it was the only one given thought at the time. Fact is, Display port IS necessary and better, in every concievable way. For pete's sake, it's called DisplayPort. Can't get much simpler than that. By next year it should be developed and adopted enough that HDMI will have served its purpose and slowly begin to fade, or at least go to the side (in the same way that S-Video was all the rage back in the early 2000s, and then Component cables whipped it aside. it's still used, but not often). While I've yet to decide on early adoption, due to cost (even though that Dell monitor is quite nice, and has seen some good reviews), hopefully we'll see a nice 19' tv in the next few months that is worthy of a go. SHARP would do well to give DisplayPort a shot, what with their recent aggressive marketing and very nice, full line of LCDs. http://www.sharpusa....58,2093,00.html < if I saw that in 1080p with a DisplayPort connector it would seal the deal (it's already a nice little package for just about any casual/semi-serious multitasking user).

[GWPEPIN]

L-com Global Connectivity has adapters and dongle cables for DVI, HDMI and HD15 to Displayport available now

[brianbuys]

villanim, on 05 March 2008 - 05:43 AM, said:

There are a few reasons as to why DisplayPort is superior to HDMI (believe me, I am no fan off Dell and it kills me siding with them on this issue), one is that unlike HDMI, in th ePC spec, DP allows video and sound over teh same cable, it is optional in HDMI, Two, fiber optics is coming to DP soon, which means you can have longer video cables then the current ten foot max for DP and fiber will give you a cleaner signal then copper. Third, future implementations of the spec can be scaled upwards to support the
signals of a monitor’s embedded microphone, USB hub, webcam, etc.—over
the same, single cable that carries your video signal. With HDMI, you
would need additional cables to be connected to your PC for those
devices. Fourth, DP does away with a layer of complexity and enables much
physically sleeker (about the width of a laptop lid) and less-expensive
monitors. HDMI was designed as an external digital A/V connection to HDTVs.

You say DP is superior because HDMI does not have audio?
How about those latitude customer who have DP but can't get audio out of the port? i learned this from experience.
i have a blu-ray and xbox 360 connected to my panasonic hdtv via hdmi and i get video and audio just fine.
at the moment, when i connect my latitude to my panasonic hdtv, i have to listen to my laptop speakers.... not fun.
once ALL dp ports have audio, then i will make the move.

[conix67]

pcwstinks, on 15 July 2008 - 06:20 PM, said:

Saying that we don't need DisplayPort because we have HDMI is like saying we don't need to breathe because we eat instead... they satisfy two very different needs.

Not in agreement with this. They both serve the purpose of transferring video signal (primarily) from the video controller to display device.

Quote

HDMI is intended to replace older analog and digital connections specifically for TVs and living room type multimedia devices. It was made to handle specifically digital HD video and sound.

HDMI was intended to replace home multimedia connections. DisplayPort was designed(?) for computer monitors. Probably true. However, as article pointed out, while the "open standard" was struggling to get products out, HDMI spread like wildfire, including almost all new LCD displays for computers. Whatever was intended to be, manufacturers adapted HDMI as pretty much an industry standard, and it continues to be.

Quote

DisplayPort - on the other hand - is a new, open standard for external displays for both desktops and notebooks AND built-in displays inside notebooks, and other smaller devices. It has added features not found in HDMI like the ability to use the SINGLE DisplayPort connection to connect a monitor and any other built in peripherals (like a WEBCAM, MICROPHONE, SPEAKERS, etc.)... over the single cable. It also allows manufacturers to RELOCATE (not completely remove, as you state) parts of the display that would traditionally have to be in close proximity to the actual LCD, giving the ability to make screens thinner (very desirable in the eyes of most consumers…). It unifies the previously varied technologies (VGA, DVI, LVDS) that were required for the many slightly differing hardware combinations (internal/external displays).

I don't quite understand the claims of "allows to relocate" and "make screen thinner".

Quote

To say that Dell is the only company pushing this technology is ludicrous. The Montevina notebook platform launched today by Intel also pushes the standard, adding main support for the output. Nvidia and ATI both plan to support the standard in upcoming (and already released) graphics cards. The whole computer industry more or less agrees on this issue; Dell is just being the juggernaut for once and implementing the standard before others.

Dell is the main backer of this open standard. Manufacturers support this standard NOT because they find it superior both from technical AND marketing stand point. Everyone is unsure, and they do not want to fall behind competition, just in case. No one that I know goes out and look for a DP enabled display, or DP capable system.

Quote

I wonder, if industry decisions on new technologies were up to people like you, would we still be using DOS? Or VGA? Or USB 1.0? Current display interface options are no longer satisfactory, and to suggest that we should stop all progress solely for the purpose of maintaining legacy support for decades-old standards is ridiculous. (What would happen if the rest of the world took up this opinion, too? – eh, a 6% efficiency rating for photovoltaics is good enough, let’s stop working to improve it…?)

And you write for what blog??? No wonder I don’t read it or remember it. Either you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are being purposefully deceptive. In either case I have no idea why your articles are being published. I guess we are talking PC World, though. I remember when I thought I might be interested in a subscription; then I read other articles like this and realized the writers are a bunch of disconnected whiners who constantly complain and don’t contribute anything (in fact are deleterious) to the world of technology news coverage.

DOS and VGA are still important. They are not dead. Most USB peripherals such as keyboard and mice are still USB 1.0. I don't know how many people find HDMI unsatisfactory. If it is not, why not push to get HDMI improved instead of building a *new* open standard which is largely redundant to an existing one? This does not help consumers, as manufacturers are forced to support both, driving their products' prices up. You can always improve things, but that doesn't mean you always have to create a new standard.

After watching the development of HDMI and DP in consumer space (including personal computers) for years, I had my own conclusions on this topic, and found this article exactly what I felt about the situation.

The bottom line is, whether you like it or not, HDMI is current industry standard that satisfies most consumer's need. How many devices do you see in the market that are capable of driving DisplayPort capable display device? Will there be days manufacturers can just put DP only on their product? Maybe, that not within years that will happen.

[chris911t]

DisplayPort is essential now that 3D monitors are catching on it is showing up the limitations of HDMI in terms of bandwidth.

To operate at 120Hz, whether in 2D or 3D mode, requires more bandwidth than HDMI can provide. It really is that simple.

Only DUAL DVI or DisplayPort can provide this.

Since DVI is regarded as "old tech", HDMI was never a sufficient replacement to be honest since the reduced bandwidth was clearly a retrograde step.

Since 2 images are required for 3D, the best HDMI can provide is a measly 24Hz.

The fact is, the world never needed HDMI with its silly gold-plated expensive cables and low bandwidth.

Simply going from DVI to DisplayPort was the logical upgrade path.

Disappointed in PCWorld, surely we can expect more knowledgeable, better-researched work than this? 3D may not have been on the horizon when the article was written but surely it must have been obvious that dual-link DVI existed for a reason versus single-link variety and therefore the lower bandwidth of HDMI was never going to be enough going forward?

This post has been edited by chris911t: 26 September 2011 - 05:10 AM

[chris911t]

<delete>

This post has been edited by chris911t: 26 September 2011 - 05:11 AM

[Rod]

"However, a USB-based technology called DisplayLink already offers multiple-monitor support." Obviously you have not tried this. It Doesn't Work! I've tried it. The sales hype for this is good, but the performance is flat out a zero. Maybe ok for one additional monitor, but if you need to link 2,3,4 or more monitors it is terrible.