[Trygve]

I have both 23" and 30" Cinema displays. Can I get a MacBook Pro with DisplayPort-to-DualDVI and use it for the 30" AND the 23" (not at the same time of course).

Or do I also need the DisplayPort-to-DVI adapter?

[angelmb]

I am in the same boat than you, if we trust Apple Store descriptions you would need two adaptors, and given the Dual-Link DVI adaptor doesn't ship until 4 or 5 weeks ( !! ) I ordered the adaptor aimed to drive the 23" ACD… after all my 30" ACD is attached to the Mac Pro. Anyhow, I find 'questionable' (a pity) the need for two different adaptors if confirmed.

[OreoCookie]

The dual-link adapter needs more electronics and is thus more expensive. Whether the difference in price is justified, though, I don't know.

[brassplayersrock²]

it sucks that the new mbp can't run a 30'' display by themselves (needs an adapter) anymore. Yet, another reason for me not to buy a new model mbp.

[CharlesS]

Looks like there's an extra cable that plugs into the computer - looks like USB or something.



Just curious, anyone know what that's for?

[0157988944]

It's USB powered. So now, their pro-level machines, used in conjunction with their own pro-level 30" display, leaves you only ONE USB port. Does that suck or what?

[CharlesS]

Hmm, if the USB cable is just for power, I wonder if it would work to just plug it into an iPod power brick.

[0157988944]

Probably.

[Trygve]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

It's USB powered. So now, their pro-level machines, used in conjunction with their own pro-level 30" display, leaves you only ONE USB port. Does that suck or what?

Once you plug in the USB from the Cinema Display, you have ZERO USB ports on the laptop - only the two on the big display, one of which is used for the keyboard.

In the end, you have one available on the Cinema and one on the keyboard. However, these can't be used for something like a portable Hard Drive or camera in some cases as some devices only seem to work if plugged into the Mac itself.

[iomatic]

Good lord. Let's hope Apple sticks with this format for the next 7 years.

For crying out loud, what have we had in the past ten years; VGA, ADC, DVI, Dual-link DVI and now Display Port?

Do they not want to sell displays or something?

[markponcelet]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Looks like there's an extra cable that plugs into the computer - looks like USB or something.

Just curious, anyone know what that's for?

The USB part probably helps the computer communicate with the other display so that it can be dimmed from the keyboard, detected by the OS, etc. I have an adapter with a similar USB plug, and that's exactly what doesn't work if I unplug the USB cable. It also lets me plug USB things into the monitor's USB ports, of course.

[iomatic]

^I would imagine iSight data too.

[CharlesS]

Wait, so the current Apple monitors can transmit USB data over the dual-link DVI connection?

Or is there just a female USB connector on the adapter that you'd plug another USB cable into, with the USB part of the adapter being basically a cord extender?

[iREZ]

i'm with iomatic, apple has been flip flopping for some time now. i thought they finally had something with their last line (dvi ports on macbook pros and mac pros, :cough: mac mini :cough:, and adapter for macbook and imac. why would a pro user wanna deal with using adapters here and there...pretty lame, but steve mentioned that it's now industry standard. does this mean all computers will abandon simple dvi/vga/hdmi ports for their own proprietary adapters for their own proprietary ports? seems pretty useless and stupid to me, anybody care to shed some light?

[0157988944]

Not suer what the second part of your post means, Charles, but current Apple monitors have a DVI cord, a USB cord, and a FireWire cord. However, unplugging the USB cord only means that the USB hub on the display doesn't work.

and iREZ, DisplayPort is not proprietary. It is an industry standard that Apple is at the forefront of. Unfortunately, they may have come to that forefront a bit too soon.

[CharlesS]

Oh, it's just that the picture I posted makes it look like the new 30" adapter has mini-DP and USB on one end but only one connector on the other end, the female dual-link DVI. I was just curious what the USB there was for. Probably there's just a female USB connector next to the DVI that we just can't see from the picture or something.

[0157988944]

Oh, I see now. That actually raises a lot more questions. As a current ACD outputs USB, FireWire, and DVI, I would think that this adapter, especially if it takes up a USB in and of itself, would have a female USB, FireWire and DVI, but it appears not to. Which begs the question, will the ACD itelf take up yet another USB port, meaning that there will be none left on the MBP itself?

[0157988944]

AND... to use the old ACD with a new MBP, you'll need yet another FW 800 > 400 adapter to use THAT hub. This is getting really un-Apple here.

[Simon]

The USB port on the dual adapter has nothing to do with USB on the monitor or an iSight. You are going to DVI so you are not going to an iSight. Also the USB is the wrong way around for data. You would need to connect the screen's USB to the Mac, not the Mac's USB to DVI or DP.

The general consensus seems to be that USB is there to power the adapter - that's a lot simpler and cleaner than having yet another power brick you need to plug into AC. I also think markponcelet could be right that you might need USB to control the second monitor. In the good old days I remember having to connect ADB to my Apple CRT Monitor to be able to control things like brightness. OTOH I always thought DVI already had signal lines for that kind of stuff...

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

AND... to use the old ACD with a new MBP, you'll need yet another FW 800 > 400 adapter to use THAT hub. This is getting really un-Apple here.

No, no, NO you don't. All you need is a FireWire cable. Just like with the old machines. The only difference is that you use a cable with a 9-pin connector on one end, instead of one with 6-pin connectors on both ends. That is all.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by iomatic 

For crying out loud, what have we had in the past ten years; VGA, ADC, DVI, Dual-link DVI and now Display Port?

If you have DVI, you also have VGA (you have to use a simple adapter). Dual link DVI is backwards compatible to DVI and only necessary if you want to drive a very-high resolution display. Then one DVI connection is simply not enough. With the exception of ADC, these interface connects are all standards and widely adopted. Apple has consistently offered DVI up until the previous-gen ProBooks. AFAI remember most Mac graphics cards have offered one DVI interconnect in addition to ADC, so Apple has consistently offered DVI out for what, seven years?

DisplayPort is in its infancy, so we don't know whether it will become the standard interconnect of the future.

[iREZ]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

iREZ, DisplayPort is not proprietary. It is an industry standard that Apple is at the forefront of. Unfortunately, they may have come to that forefront a bit too soon.

How could something be the industry standard and still be a bit too soon? I just don't get why Apple would subject us to adapters when we don't NEED them, I guess saving space and being first to adopt is the reason. Regardless, I won't lose sleep over this decision...

[iomatic]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If you have DVI, you also have VGA (you have to use a simple adapter). Dual link DVI is backwards compatible to DVI and only necessary if you want to drive a very-high resolution display. Then one DVI connection is simply not enough. With the exception of ADC, these interface connects are all standards and widely adopted. Apple has consistently offered DVI up until the previous-gen ProBooks. AFAI remember most Mac graphics cards have offered one DVI interconnect in addition to ADC, so Apple has consistently offered DVI out for what, seven years?

DisplayPort is in its infancy, so we don't know whether it will become the standard interconnect of the future.

I'm talking about their displays.

[OreoCookie]

With the exception of ADC, VGA, DVI and now DisplayPort are standard VESA connectors for displays. Arguably, VGA and DVI are the standard interconnects of their respective times (DVI still is).

These days, HDMI and DisplayPort have been developed to succeed DVI. I don't understand why it's a bad thing that Apple supports the dominant display interface of the day (although we don't know whether DisplayPort will really succeed and dominate the market).

[iomatic]

I just mean they should have a transitional port philosophy. You know, DVI and DisplayPort. (I guess they're the same, but why make the consumer pay, when you can get a Dell with (admittedly, too many) so many inputs?) Or maybe DisplayPort and HDMI?

So, ADC should have had VGA, and the later versions have DVI, or maybe just DVI. I know they're a little different, but hey we had FireWire on some laptops for awhile; I'm sure those will disappear... oh wait, they have!

[Simon]

I see what you mean, but don't you think Apple would have added additional ports if that was feasible? You tell me where to fit in a big fat DVI-I here.



Or would you rather have a larger case to get extra ports (the "Dell approach")? If so, then I guess the bottom line is that Apple simply doesn't agree on that one.

[iomatic]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I see what you mean, but don't you think Apple would have added additional ports if that was feasible? You tell me where to fit in a big fat DVI-I here.
...
Or would you rather have a larger case to get extra ports (the "Dell approach")? If so, then I guess the bottom line is that Apple simply doesn't agree on that one.

No, in the displays.

[Simon]

DP can pass through DVI. Similar to the way DVI-I carries VGA.

[CharlesS]

The part I don't really understand is why they apparently don't include a mini-DP-to-DVI adapter in the box with the machine. My older MBP came with a DVI-to-VGA adapter, and DVI monitors would seem to be a little more common than VGA these days...

[iomatic]

Originally Posted by Simon 

DP can pass through DVI. Similar to the way DVI-I carries VGA.

Yeah, but... you have to carry adapters for computers that may or may not have DP… you get the idea. I'm just saying if they carried one other previous "generation" plug, they'd be able to offer up to a far larger audience. Not one so huge as to encompass everyone, just those who are still a generation (not much, but I'm sure a pretty huge market) behind.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by iomatic 

Yeah, but... you have to carry adapters for computers that may or may not have DP… you get the idea.

Actually, we might be screwed trying to connect a MacBook to a display that does have DP... is it just me, or is there no mini-DP-to-DP adapter at the Apple store?

[iomatic]

I'm sure other manufacturers will provide two or more other options?

[iDaver]

Oh my, these acronyms are frying my brain!

I own a HP 2560 x 1600 30" display, connected to my Mac Pro. Suppose I wanted to sell the Mac Pro and get a new MacBook instead, which is supposed to support a 30" display. I understand I have to buy a $100 adapter, shown in the picture above. Why the heck does the adapter have to be plugged into USB as well as DisplayPort? Will the monitor work without the USB part of the adapter being plugged in? An USB connection was not necessary for a 30" display connected to previous MacBook Pros so I can't understand why it would be required with DisplayPort, which is supposed to be superior.

Ughh! My hope is that the adapter is an USB hub with a couple of female ports, thus the reason for the male USB plug at the other end. It's not explained in the product description at the Apple Store. It should be.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

... is it just me, or is there no mini-DP-to-DP adapter at the Apple store?

Surely mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cables will be commonplace before long. Maybe not at Radio Shack but Belkin and Apple should have them.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The part I don't really understand is why they apparently don't include a mini-DP-to-DVI adapter in the box with the machine. My older MBP came with a DVI-to-VGA adapter, and DVI monitors would seem to be a little more common than VGA these days...

AFAICT it's just business. They used to be a lot more generous when it comes to adapters. Nowadays you get the bare minimum and need to buy any adapters yourself. My last MBP didn't come with a VGA adapter and my last MB didn't come with VGA or DVI adapter. It's the same with iPods. Do you remember how many accessories they used to ship with?

In principle I don't think that's wrong. I like the idea of adding extras myself so I don't have to pay for extra stuff I don't need. The only problem here is that we're already paying extra.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by iomatic 

Yeah, but... you have to carry adapters for computers that may or may not have DP… you get the idea. I'm just saying if they carried one other previous "generation" plug, they'd be able to offer up to a far larger audience.

Actually, it might be worse. Just because the cable and plug can pass through DVI does not mean the screen can display it. I have yet to see somebody connect a DVI-equipped Mac to a new MDP display with a DVI->MDP adapter. In principle Apple could be selling a display that requires DP and DP only. Just like even though DVI-I can carry VGA, an ACD DVI input is DVI-only (DVI-D actually). The VGA signal won't drive the ACD. I haven't seen a actual report on this yet, but in principle these screens could be DP-only, no DVI.

If that's actually the case I guess Apple will either add other display models (or at least a version of the 24" LED ACD for DVI) or they will keep selling the old screens for quite another while. I doubt they will go MDP-only on new MP graphic cards so we're bound to see something pop up in the near future.

OTOH this might just be too pessimistic and it'll turn out the new display runs fine off of DVI. In that case all you need is a DVI->MDP adapter to use it with any DVI-equipped Mac.

[Simon]

And just for the record, I'm still p/o that Apple thinks their expensive monitors don't need a second video input at all.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

My last MBP didn't come with a VGA adapter

Unless you have one of the brand-new MBPs with mini-DP, that seems very odd, since I have the previous model MBP that was released in February, and it definitely came with a VGA adapter.

It's nice to have, since a lot of projectors only have VGA for input. Anyone who ever gives a PowerPoint (or Keynote) presentation needs to have a VGA adapter.

[OreoCookie]

Exactly, few projectors have DVI it seems. It means, I need to order two adapters

[Big Mac]

To those who are complaining about DisplayPort: This is the cost of progress. DisplayPort is more advanced than DVI, and other computer manufacturers started moving to it before Apple did. Apple will not stay with a previous generation display connection port simply because some feel inconvenienced by DisplayPort. And yes, in the last ten years we've had three major display connection types: VGA, DVI and now DisplayPort. I don't think it makes sense to say 4 because I don't count DVI Dual Link as completely separate from DVI; it was just an improvement designed to overcome an inherent shortcoming of DVI when used with large displays. Three connector types in 10 years isn't that bad if you consider it. In 1998 VGA was REALLY old, on the way out and should have been retired long before, having been first introduced in PCs in 1987. DVI was a decent replacement, but it too is now starting to be phased out in favor of the newer and more advanced DisplayPort.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And yes, in the last ten years we've had three major display connection types: VGA, DVI and now DisplayPort.

Don't forget Apple's ADC (Apple Display Connector) which was the biggest mess of them all.

[Big Mac]

Oh okay, I forgot about ADC. It was a worthwhile attempt to combine cables.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh okay, I forgot about ADC. It was a worthwhile attempt to combine cables.

But their current approach to solve the cable issue is so much more appropriate. They've learned a lot since.

[iomatic]

That's fine; I think progress is good — but not, as I said, at the expense of slightly older technology like DVI. What are DVI users going to do with this new display? What did everyone else want to do with those ridiculous ADC displays back then, and what is the resale value of those?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

To those who are complaining about DisplayPort: This is the cost of progress. DisplayPort is more advanced than DVI, and other computer manufacturers started moving to it before Apple did. Apple will not stay with a previous generation display connection port simply because some feel inconvenienced by DisplayPort. And yes, in the last ten years we've had three major display connection types: VGA, DVI and now DisplayPort. I don't think it makes sense to say 4 because I don't count DVI Dual Link as completely separate from DVI; it was just an improvement designed to overcome an inherent shortcoming of DVI when used with large displays. Three connector types in 10 years isn't that bad if you consider it. In 1998 VGA was REALLY old, on the way out and should have been retired long before, having been first introduced in PCs in 1987. DVI was a decent replacement, but it too is now starting to be phased out in favor of the newer and more advanced DisplayPort.

It's not about the new port, it's about the lack of out-of-the-box connectivity. My previous-generation MacBook Pro can connect to any DVI, dual-link DVI, or VGA monitor, which comes out to pretty much every computer display in the world except for Apple's new one, out of the box. The new MBPs can connect to a grand total of one monitor out of the box, and to get the level of display connectivity that the old MBP has, one has to buy $160 worth of adapters (and one of those adapters eats a USB port).

The thing is, while DisplayPort is an open standard, mini-DisplayPort appears to be some Apple proprietary thing. Now if the non-standard port were just to save space, like the mini-DVI and mini-VGA ports used on older Apple machines, and the monitor used a regular DisplayPort connector that could be connected via an adapter that would be included with the MacBook (Pro), I would understand it. But no, it appears that all Apple's machines, even the behemoth Mac Pro, are going to use mini-DP instead of a full-size DP port, and the monitors themselves are using the proprietary mini-DP port instead of the standard. Particularly bizarrely, there seems to be no way to connect a monitor that supports DisplayPort to the MB(P) using its native interface at all, because there is no adapter for a normal DisplayPort connector - one has to pay $30 for the DVI adapter (or $100 for the DVI-DL adapter if it's a big monitor). So what it looks like here is that Apple is trying to completely replace the DisplayPort connector with a new proprietary connector of its own making, which no one else currently uses, and is hoping everyone will jump on board. Has that ever worked?

Actually, I think we've got the trappings of ADC here.

- new connector used on all Apple computers and monitors

- standard interface, non-standard connector (ADC was basically just DVI with a weird connector that had a few extra pins for USB and power)

- need a difficult to find and potentially expensive adapter if you want to connect a computer or a monitor that has a standard connector type

[iDaver]

Yes it's hard to figure. DisplayPort is a pretty small connection; less than half the size of DVI. It seems Apple just likes to do their own thing and create complications for everyone else.

[CharlesS]

Well if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit, but they could just include a mini-DP to DP adapter with the laptops and have the monitor use a regular DP connector, like they've done with DVI on their previous-gen machines. That would make sense, but the way they're doing it you can't connect a non-Apple monitor that uses DisplayPort to the machine, and you can't connect an Apple monitor to a non-Apple machine. The thing I can't figure out is, don't they want to make money from the monitors? How does shutting out 99% of the market make sense financially?

[iDaver]

1) Apple is hoping the industry will adopt mini-DisplayPort or 2) DisplayPort to mini-DisplayPort cables will become commonplace. Either way, it seems to needlessly complicate things but it probably won't prevent non-Apple computer users from buying an Apple monitor if they can justify and afford one. Personally, I've given up on Apple monitors. They're overpriced.

[CharlesS]

Apple's monitors are pretty much the only easy-to-find H-IPS monitors left in town, which makes them desirable for graphics pros. H-IPS is expensive because it's a high-end panel technology, as well as because the economies of scale favor the cheaper panel types. I don't think it's really possible for Apple's monitors not to be expensive unless they use cheap TN panels that have bad color accuracy and horrible viewing angles.

Sadly, S-PVA seems to be heading for the same fate right now. There used to be a lot of S-PVA monitors available, but now there's only a few in 24" sizes, and virtually none in any size smaller than that.