Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Displayport: A Better Video Interface

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 426 posts

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#151

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

londons_explore wrote: post #66
fsh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bandwidth is much too low.

If this were true, then people would be running datacenter networking over HDMI. Data is data - there is no benefit to designing two entirely different transport mechanisms for video vs other data. You could argue that video data has a deadline to meet - but ethernet already has lots of mechanisms for QoS and bandwidth reservations to make sure that someones torrents don't interrupt something latency sensitive. Sure,…

HDMI is severely length limited. Ethernet has no millisecond level latency guarantees. Data isn't always just data.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#152

Post by Joker_vD »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #132
hot_gril wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense to move the windows if you close a laptop lid, but not if you turn off a monitor. You can't disconnect the laptop screen, but you can easily disconnect the monitor. I have a cheap laptop that doesn't understand a turned-off monitor as unusable, and it's actually way nicer that way.

Why is it nicer? What is the use case for having unreachable windows?

So that I don't see them while they still stay where they are! For example, preparing for a slide-show is one example: move PowerPoint to the second screen where it'd stay even if there is actually no second screen.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#153

Post by Aaargh20318 »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #132
hot_gril wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense to move the windows if you close a laptop lid, but not if you turn off a monitor. You can't disconnect the laptop screen, but you can easily disconnect the monitor. I have a cheap laptop that doesn't understand a turned-off monitor as unusable, and it's actually way nicer that way.

Why is it nicer? What is the use case for having unreachable windows?

But my windows aren't getting messed up, once I turn the monitor back on it restores the previous state.

And the use case is simple: I have 2 monitors hooked up to my machine but I don't always need 2 monitors. I have a 34" 5k2k ultrawide and a 27" 4k in portrait mode. When I'm coding or using my computer for an extended amount of time I turn both on, but when I just want to quickly write an e-mail I only turn on the main monitor. I mostly use the ultrawide and have the portrait monitor to the side to dump documentation and other materials I need for quick reference on. Right now it's 29ºC in my room and I don't want to turn on more equipment than needed.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#154

Post by pavlov »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #143

The amazing thing about DVI, and by extension HDMI, is that it's just VGA but digital, with all the timing and synchronisation complexity that implies. Recall that DVI can have both an analog (VGA/DVI-A) and digital (DVI-D) signal in the same cable. They aren't independent; they share some pins and have the same timing. You could have made a CRT monitor that used DVI-D just by adding a DAC, though I'm not sure if any…

I was guessing that the oddly beautiful 17” Apple CRT Studio Display [1] from 2000 might have been a CRT that used a digital signal cable because it had the short-lived Apple Display Connector, but apparently ADC carried analog too.

[1] https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/appl...

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#155

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

jayd16 wrote: post #6
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #4

I just wish there was only one connector. Either HDMI or DP. I don't care.

It'll be the USB-C port.

I recently switched DisplayPort connecting my laptop to the monitor for USB-C, didn't see any difference, except now I get video (4kx60hz, max for my monitor), audio, can connect mouse and keyboard directly to the monitor, and the cable is thinner and lighter. Am I missing on something?

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#156

Post by AlotOfReading »

xxpor wrote: post #117
hazebooth wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you thinking of Level1techs? https://store.level1techs.com/products/14-kvm-switch-triple-...

I'm 90% sure it was, but it looks like they did a major UI update to the site so it's not triggering the "that was it!" lightbulb in my brain.

I use one, so I can confirm they work extremely well, subject to some caveats:

* The total cable length is important, both between the host / KVM and the KVM / monitor, as well as any daisy chained displays you have. I had to use certified cables to get everything working reliably with my setup.

* There's a weird interaction with BIOS power on. The boot display drivers I have freak out if they aren't the active display and fail. I solve this by switching the KVM before I turn the computer on. After everything is booted into an OS, it works fine to switch.

* Power supply quality is important. I had some issues before I made sure the power supply was reliable.

KVM switches are just inherently difficult little devices. I haven't had issues since I got it working though.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#157

Post by seanalltogether »

tivert wrote: post #77

Are there any KVM switches that do Displayport well (i.e. where switching between inputs does not look like a display disconnect to the PC)? I'm still using HDMI because I like to share my home multi-monitor setup between my personal machine and my work laptop, and the KVM switches are able to fool the PCs into thinking the monitor are always connected. Years ago I tried a Displayport switch, but it could not -- I as…

Can you explain why this is beneficial? I have a mac laptop and pc desktop at home that i switch between depending on whatever I need to do. By triggering a disconnect, it means all my mac windows that are on the main monitor will zip back over to the laptop so they're still reachable if i need to access them with the trackpad and integrated keyboard. When I switch the kvm back to mac all those windows jump back to the main monitor.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#158

Post by theamk »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #83
Perz1val wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an OS problem, that's how DP is supposed to work and that's in fact stupid

It’s an OS problem for not handling monitors being disconnected and reconnected properly. What is stupid is having half your windows unreachable because they are on a monitor that is turned off. How does that help anyone? Imagine how annoying it would be on a laptop? I use my laptop in a meeting, and have a few windows open on its screen, then I arrive at my desk and plug in my 2 external monitors and keep my laptop…

You are talking about physical monitor unplugging, while others are talking about monitor power off, but still plugged in.

I agree that when monitor is physically removed, the windows should go back.

But if it is just powered off but still plugged in? I say windows should stay there, just like HDMI did. For example I sometimes turn off monitors for less distractions during regular conversations.. or to save power before leaving.. in this case windows jumping all over the screen are the last thing I want.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#159

Post by aidenn0 »

bleepblop wrote: post #92
aidenn0 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I plug my computer into my AV receiver all the time, and my speakers are worth more than my TV.

If your receiver doesn't support eARC, you are definitely not getting full resolution audio.

I don't use ARC at all (all audio sources go through the receiver), so that's a non-issue for me.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#160

Post by someplaceguy »

Joker_vD wrote: post #148
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when I turn off my displays that are on HDMI or DVI or VGA, the computer still detects them like normal, like they're connected, because they are. But since they’re off, that doesn’t make any sense, now you can’t reach any windows on those monitors. I think the macOS behavior make the most sense, move them so you can access them, but move them back once the display is turned on.

Or, you know, don't do any of those silly dances and just let the windows stay where they are the whole time between turning the displays off and on? Reminds me of that problem with video driver update on Windows when the screen is momentarily resized down to 1024x768 resolution and then instantly goes back to 2560x1440: all the non-maxed windows get shrunk down and shifted to the upper-left corner (so they would be…

Sounds like a Windows problem once again...
Post reply on HN