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

221–230 of 426 posts

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#221

Post by fanf2 »

rasz wrote: post #208
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…

>DisplayPort does away with all that legacy. You wish. DP sends exactly same bytes DVI does (blanking and all), just broken up into packets.

The important difference is that (like VGA) DVI and HDMI still dedicate particular physical wires to separate red, green, and blue channels. Display port does not shard individual pixels across multiple channels: all bits (all colours) of a pixel are sent on the same diffpair. If a DP link has multiple lanes then the bits of different successive pixels are sent on each lane.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#222

Post by Aaargh20318 »

drbawb wrote: post #185
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Imagine how annoying it would be on a laptop? >That would be an absolutely brain dead way of working. For starters: the experience I want on my laptop is not the same as the experience I want on my desktop. I have two monitors at home, sometimes I like to turn off the wing-monitor when I am watching a movie on the center screen. (To avoid distraction, and also minimize glare, etc.) That doesn't mean I want those win…

> that's probably going to interfere w/ the movie that is playing, fuck up my desktop wallpapers, icons, window sizes, etc

That sounds like a Windows problem.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#223

Post by Aaargh20318 »

hot_gril wrote: post #161
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This seems like a very specific situation, and you could disconnect the second monitor for it. Not sure about the reliability of window restoration. It's at least better in the latest macOS than in older versions.

Dive under my desk and unplug the monitor from the Thunderbolt 4 hub or just press the power button.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#224

Post by dsab »

I hate HDMI, I had many problems with this interface, in my prvious job my monitor was turning off when I was getting up from chair, same was happening in my home with differeng PC, cables and monitor. Such a thing never happend to me when I changed interface to Display Port

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#225

Post by throwawaymobule »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #198
dylan604 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I agree with that, but I also know that firewire helped usher in the digital video era. It allowed the transition from tape based acquisition when media cards were prohibitively expensive. Audio/Video/Deck control all down one single cable straight from the camera to the computer was what really kicked the prosumer market into being able to lean closer to pro than consumer. Now that media cards are actually aff…

It wasn't that short-lived. All DV cameras had FireWire. Although Sony, per its mania for undermining industry standards, created a bastardized version (called I-Link, ugh) whose connector lacked power and required a physical adapter. External FireWire drives (like LaCie's) were popular for quite a long time, since they required no extra power source.

I think the 4 pin version was also standard, it's just that Sony didn't own the trademark on FireWire, Apple did. Sony was actually one of the companies that developed the spec, according to Wikipedia.

I had a HP laptop with that connector, but it was labelled IEEE-. Bought a 4 to 6 cable to connect it to an old iMac, but never bothered enough to use it.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#226

Post by throw0101c »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #53
LoveMortuus wrote: post #33

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. I don't understand in which case the 'act like it's physically disconnected' behaviour would be more desired than what we had with all the standards before. I have read that some DisplayPort displays do have an option in the settings to disable this behaviour.

> 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.

> But since they’re off, that doesn’t make any sense, now you can’t reach any windows on those monitors.

Perhaps I want to turn off the displays to darken the room.

I don't want anything done with the programs/windows except not look at them.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#227

Post by MBCook »

tshaddox wrote: post #123

> However, I’d like to tell you that you probably should pay more attention to DisplayPort – it’s an interface powerful in a way that we haven’t seen before. Lines like that really show just how long it can take for standards to get on the radar of mainstream tech culture. I remember hearing about and being excited about DisplayPort's move to packetized digital video in college in 2008, and seeing the first Macs with…

Same. I live in the Mac world. When I took a job where I had to use PCs at work I was surprised to see they were mostly using HDMI with some people using older DVI equipment.

I had just assumed everyone had transitioned similar to Macs has years before.

Nope. Lots of people use/want HDMI to this day.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#228

Post by MBCook »

throwawaymobule wrote: post #225
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't that short-lived. All DV cameras had FireWire. Although Sony, per its mania for undermining industry standards, created a bastardized version (called I-Link, ugh) whose connector lacked power and required a physical adapter. External FireWire drives (like LaCie's) were popular for quite a long time, since they required no extra power source.

I think the 4 pin version was also standard, it's just that Sony didn't own the trademark on FireWire, Apple did. Sony was actually one of the companies that developed the spec, according to Wikipedia. I had a HP laptop with that connector, but it was labelled IEEE- . Bought a 4 to 6 cable to connect it to an old iMac, but never bothered enough to use it.

It was a standard because Sony said “we’re doing this” and gave the FireWire group an ultimatum: standardize it or were not on board.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#229

Post by nfriedly »

askura wrote: post #122

The only downside with DP is just devices that actually have that versus HDMI / Mini hdmi. This post though has made me annoyed as DP is clearly the better standard.

Agree with you there. I'd be much happier if my Raspberry Pis, cheap USB-C hubs, cheap monitors, etc. all had DP instead of HDMI.

It's extra annoying when you realize that you're paying more for royalties and sometimes additional hardware (e.g. in a USB-C hub that uses DP internally but converts to HDMI for the output) just to get an inferior interface.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#230

Post by MBCook »

muhammadusman wrote: post #172
smachiz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be your dock. Check to see whether it's USB or Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt docks are more expensive, but considerably more efficient and faster than USB (assuming your laptop/device supports Thunderbolt). Thunderbolt docks are basically PCIe extension devices, whereas USB docks attach everything as USB, with all the common challenges USB has on systems (like dropped audio when the CPU is busy).

Thanks for the info. The dock is the CalDigit TS3 Plus dock and I’m using it with an LG monitor. Their page says it’s a Thunderbolt dock so I wonder if there’s anything else about this particular dock that could be causing this issue. Btw when the monitor was connected over HDMI, it was fine playing audio. https://www.caldigit.com/ts3-plus/

That is absolutely TB and was one of the recommended docks in the Mac world for a long time.

Have you talked to support? Or I wonder if it’s an issue on the LG side.

Post reply on HN