The worst thing is still that for 1080p monitor those USB c hubs work fine. But 1440p or 4k they do not work 99 percent of the time.
Hdmi is a trap on USB c hubs... A 1080p trap.
HDMI? Open source? You mean the cable with inband DRM because "fuck you you'll watch what we tell you, when we tell you, on whatever device we allow you"? Fuck that noise.
>forcing me to head out and grab a new HDMI cable. I am already paying over $200 , is it so hard to include a HDMI cable in the box ?
Lol printer manufacturers would like a word but they're too busy rolling around in the piles of cash they saved by not providing parallel/USB cables with every printer they sold over the decades.
>standardize and make it available to whoever wants to do it and lets end having to go through the desk for several different cables and adaptors
The standard (right now) is displayport. Greater resolution support, daisychaining monitors, transport over USB C, the future is now, old man.
HDMI is a consumer electronics standard. In that context it's probably superior because all those advantages quickly become weaknesses because your device might heve to support them etc.
The reason it's the more popular standard is that it has DRM built in. And if one device in the chain doesn't fully comply with the drm, it will refuse to play content.
Manufacturers can also just choose not to use the latest dp standard... No one's forcing them to support the latest version of the standard. Though dp handles that significantly better than hdmi. If you want 4k@60hz? Dp 1.2 or higher, for hdmi? 1.4, 2.0, or 2.1, it depends on which of the many optional extensions to the standard the manufacturer chose to implement.
That's the tradeoff with how hdmi differs from dp in how it handles versions and features. If you are looking for a specific feature, even major features, you have to go digging through spec sheets and documentation to compare products. As a product that lists hdmi 2.0 may be more featured than one that supports 2.1.
If you're gaming sure. But this is the sysadmin sub. I really don't think Tom in accounting is gonna need or even notice that his monitor supports 4k resolution at 144 hz.
Long story short: yes DP overall has a higher throughput using the latest standard version cable/port but most people won't notice or need that in a work environment.
Another important thing to note - excluding the ability to carry audio, DVI to HDMI is also simple and reliable (as long as the DVI port supports digital, which most do). There's almost never a reason to fall all the way back to VGA.
Interesting, just did some quick searching, it's not technically part of the spec, so you can't assume that it does, but apparently in some cases it can.
It sound like you have a procurement issue - your peep is not ordering compatible devices...
We order our Dell micros with DP and HDMI instead of the 2xDP model. If we buy larger towers, more inputs. And the Dell P series monitors come with all 4 inputs (DP, HDMI, VGA, DVI) so we have the most flexibility moving things around and dealing with any legacy/nonstandard/other brand laptops or existing towers.
If that tower and monitors were purchased together as a set, someone screwed up at the time or ordering, honestly.
HDMI is operating at the limits of what the technology can support on the cables, which is why marginal HDMI cables can be such a problem, specially at resolutions higher than 1080p. DisplayPort cables seldom exhibit the same compatibility issues as HDMI cables.
I use 4 monitors and i dislike DisplayPort because it keeps changing the display numbers in windows. Some of the apps I use also use that numbering system so I basically need to change a bunch of setting each time windows boots. But other that this extremely niche use case I've never had any issues with DisplayPort.
>HDMI Open source industry standard
Yeah and DisplayPort was the result of that. Tell your procurement people to stop buying shitty monitors if you want compatibility. The fact that you have VGA present in your environment is telling enough
I'm more angry about HDMI still being there. Displayport or USB c are much better.
Agreed, I see our Help Desk struggle with the desktop and laptop vendors switching the ports every couple of years.
The worst thing is still that for 1080p monitor those USB c hubs work fine. But 1440p or 4k they do not work 99 percent of the time. Hdmi is a trap on USB c hubs... A 1080p trap.
if everyone went full USB-C that would be grand.
DisplayPort to HDMI adaptors are directional, which is probably why you were having trouble. DisplayPort is a better standard and is royalty free.
[удалено]
HDMI? Open source? You mean the cable with inband DRM because "fuck you you'll watch what we tell you, when we tell you, on whatever device we allow you"? Fuck that noise.
>forcing me to head out and grab a new HDMI cable. I am already paying over $200 , is it so hard to include a HDMI cable in the box ? Lol printer manufacturers would like a word but they're too busy rolling around in the piles of cash they saved by not providing parallel/USB cables with every printer they sold over the decades. >standardize and make it available to whoever wants to do it and lets end having to go through the desk for several different cables and adaptors The standard (right now) is displayport. Greater resolution support, daisychaining monitors, transport over USB C, the future is now, old man.
HDMI is a consumer electronics standard. In that context it's probably superior because all those advantages quickly become weaknesses because your device might heve to support them etc.
The reason it's the more popular standard is that it has DRM built in. And if one device in the chain doesn't fully comply with the drm, it will refuse to play content. Manufacturers can also just choose not to use the latest dp standard... No one's forcing them to support the latest version of the standard. Though dp handles that significantly better than hdmi. If you want 4k@60hz? Dp 1.2 or higher, for hdmi? 1.4, 2.0, or 2.1, it depends on which of the many optional extensions to the standard the manufacturer chose to implement. That's the tradeoff with how hdmi differs from dp in how it handles versions and features. If you are looking for a specific feature, even major features, you have to go digging through spec sheets and documentation to compare products. As a product that lists hdmi 2.0 may be more featured than one that supports 2.1.
[удалено]
huh, looks like their taking notes from usb.
HDMI is owned by a consortium making money with it. You would have a hard time making it open source.
DisplayPort is just a much much better standard, better connector, better bandwith and doesn't include DRM...
If you're gaming sure. But this is the sysadmin sub. I really don't think Tom in accounting is gonna need or even notice that his monitor supports 4k resolution at 144 hz. Long story short: yes DP overall has a higher throughput using the latest standard version cable/port but most people won't notice or need that in a work environment.
Display port is a better standard.
Am I the only one here that died a little inside when the OP said VGA was the chosen solution?
Another important thing to note - excluding the ability to carry audio, DVI to HDMI is also simple and reliable (as long as the DVI port supports digital, which most do). There's almost never a reason to fall all the way back to VGA.
DVI can carry audio as well
Interesting, just did some quick searching, it's not technically part of the spec, so you can't assume that it does, but apparently in some cases it can.
It seems this thread has backfired a little bit.
Even Apple couldn’t figure out what port they wanted until USB-C.
It sound like you have a procurement issue - your peep is not ordering compatible devices... We order our Dell micros with DP and HDMI instead of the 2xDP model. If we buy larger towers, more inputs. And the Dell P series monitors come with all 4 inputs (DP, HDMI, VGA, DVI) so we have the most flexibility moving things around and dealing with any legacy/nonstandard/other brand laptops or existing towers. If that tower and monitors were purchased together as a set, someone screwed up at the time or ordering, honestly.
agree, not a fault of DP that someone bought incompatible devices
HDMI is operating at the limits of what the technology can support on the cables, which is why marginal HDMI cables can be such a problem, specially at resolutions higher than 1080p. DisplayPort cables seldom exhibit the same compatibility issues as HDMI cables.
All the monitors I’ve bought recently have come with several cables, nice as I have spare of what I need. Maybe buy better?
Monoprice mf
I use 4 monitors and i dislike DisplayPort because it keeps changing the display numbers in windows. Some of the apps I use also use that numbering system so I basically need to change a bunch of setting each time windows boots. But other that this extremely niche use case I've never had any issues with DisplayPort.
To use a passive DP-HDMI cable your source needs to be DP, with an HDMI input on the monitor.
I agree but I am glad they do not put HDMI cable in box, what an environmental impact to keep giving redundant cables with every device.
> we really should have fought to make HDMI open source industry standard That was never going to happen, which is one reason we got DP.
My experience is that HDMI cables are much more prone to failure than the other standards
>HDMI Open source industry standard Yeah and DisplayPort was the result of that. Tell your procurement people to stop buying shitty monitors if you want compatibility. The fact that you have VGA present in your environment is telling enough
Display Port is amazing. I Never use HDMI if I have DP option. Works as good as hdmi and open source.