DisplayPort versus the old ways Thanks for the heads-up. I had read the wiki page on DisplayPort, but nothing really caught my imagination. Here's the scheme:
I have a perfectly good HDMI monitor and a cable that cost $4.50. The per-unit royalty on HDMI is something like 4 cents. Here's a 6-ft Display Port to HDMI cable that costs $85: http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=40646&vpn=DP2HDMIMM6&manufacture=Startech.com%20Ltd Or if I want to get a DisplayPort monitor and pay a mere $24 for the cable, I'm looking at $400 for a 1920x1200 screen: http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=45554&vpn=NL773A8#ABA&manufacture=Hewlett%20Packard There are cheaper screens, but they don't have so many pixels. Do you really want to get an external monitor that's only, say, 1680x1050 ? I sure hope that DisplayPort has some breathtaking advantages over the old technology. DisplayPort could turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread. Or it could turn out to be a bit of a dud, like hand scanners or DL DVD+-R disks or DVD-RAM or bubble memory or 5" diskettes (not to be confused with 5.25" floppies) .... >The display port is called DisplayPort, and not to worry, adapter cables are >readily available to convert it to either DVI or HDMI. You can either get a >male DisplayPort to male HDMI cable, or just a short male DisplayPort to >female HDMI adapter and use an existing HDMI cable. > >http://www.google.com/search?q=displayport+hdmi+adapter+OR+cable > >-Mike > >On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> An immediate drawback is that there is no HDMI output. They >> have something that they say is better than DVI or HDMI, but so >> far I haven't seen any monitors with that kind of a plug. It's >> that sort of one-way standard which often doesn't take. >> Anyhoo, there's still good old VGA. >> -- happy Jonathan Berry and Erika http://members.shaw.ca/berry5868/fun.htm _______________________________________________ Thinkpad mailing list [email protected] http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
