https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr-ACsQ1BXA&t=0
Check out VideoCom at https://lmg.gg/VideoCom and use code LINUS for 50% off any paid subscription!HDMI is incredibly common - but should you be using Displa...
If I use display port for 2 monitors, when my system sleeps, all of the windows forget where they've been placed and I have to move each one back into position. 2x HDMI doesn't have that issue. Until that changes, display port is unusable for me.
I use DisplayPort for two monitors (not daisychained) and it works, but that's of no help to you. But perhaps it means there's something about your setup that isn't working rather than it being an inherent DP issue.
I have a similar issue that when my monitors connected by display port are put to sleep, the computer treats it like they have been disconnected completely - and hence all my windows get shoved around.
This is with a laptop with its screen option, hooked up to a DP monitor by USB C adapter.
I would love to switch to DP but this prevents me.
This is a windows bug. Are you still on win10? It's fixed in 11.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/avoid-unexpected-app-rearrangement/
Well I'll be. Yes, I'm still on Windows 10. I suppose now I have a reason to consider updating.
Why yes, let me run some untrusted software as admin from Github patching a central part of my OS while I don't even know what it does!
I installed Windows 11 AME on my Windows 11 and generally I hate too much things about it in general, but it has nothing to do with AME, it actually improved the experience by a bit, but Windows still has too many issues to just stay at Win 10
It's mind-boggling to me that this hasn't been fixed (in Windows, I assume?), people have been complaining for years.
It's not inherent to DisplayPort though. Some monitors that suffer from this issue can disable "deep sleep" and have the issue gone even with DisplayPort, but not all monitors allow turning it off.
(And others yet, like my old Acer XB271HU, doesn't have the issue to begin with.)
The VGA connector is the best connector since it's DRM free. DP, HDMI, and DVI all support HDCP DRM.
I’m pretty sure some clever engineer has already built a device that hooks up 20 VGA cables in parallel and uses link aggregation techniques to increase the bandwidth to whatever you want.
In general, what is the highest frequency that can be carried over a wire?
I know it can do these resolutions in practice because I have personally operated CRTs at 4000x3000 resolution in the early 2000s. This could be considered "the 4:3 of 4K." It was not done on fancy equipment or high-end monitors. Analog stuff really could just go to really high resolutions and refresh rates with above-average, but typical stuff.
CRTs simply respond to waveforms for red, green, blue, vertical sync, and horizonal sync. That's it. If you want more horizonal pixels, make your scan lines denser. If you want more vertical pixels, add more scan lines. Want a faster refresh rate? Simply run all the signals faster.
There is no hard upper limit to it. With digital signals, there are throughput limits per spec due to bit rates, but with analog, there are no bits. Resolutions like 40k x 30k are theoretically possible. The difficult parts are rendering the signal at these high frequencies, and being able to meaningfully display them. The VGA connection itself has no limits.
In theory you can push anything over the wires, be it analogue or digital. The issue is with communication standards. VGA defines which wires should be used, which frequencies should be used, etc. Thus VGA specifically has limitations. Otherwise monitors, cables and video cards would have compatibility issues. I don't think you were pushing 4000x3000 resolution through VGA. Just like today no one is pushing video streams to giant building sized screens over consumer HDMI or DVI.
Another example is XLR VS 3.5mm jack. In theory you can push audio signal of any quality over both, but XLR by spec is balanced and shielded, while 3.5mm is not. This means that XLR is capable of pushing much better audio.
Otherwise monitors, cables and video cards would have compatibility issues.
You're right, and this was absolutely a thing. Video cards could produce whatever they were capable of, and monitors could display whatever they were also capable of. You could also push resolutions and refresh rates to monitors that was beyond the monitors' specs, and you would also risk damaging the monitor by doing this.
I don't think you were pushing 4000x3000 resolution through VGA.
You don't need to believe me. That's your choice. I had friends that could do the same. This was with a Matrox card and a 21" Acer CRT. The display was nearly impossible to read, and the color mask broke up the individual pixels too much, anyway.
Just like today no one is pushing video streams to giant building sized screens over consumer HDMI or DVI.
Digital video has upper limits in its specs. This is the whole point of this conversation.
Another example is XLR VS 3.5mm jack. In theory you can push audio signal of any quality over both, but XLR by spec is balanced and shielded, while 3.5mm is not. This means that XLR is capable of pushing much better audio.
A bit of incorrect information here. There is no "unshielded 3.5mm spec." Good cables have shields, but not all. XLR doesn't have the ability to transport higher frequencies because it's balanced, or "much better audio." On paper, unbalanced audio is better for short runs because there is more opportunity for XLR signals to have extremely minute signal quality issues due to the hot and cold signal mirroring, but it's so small that it doesn't matter.
From the transcript and ai generated summary from Claude:
Here is a summary of the key points from the Linus Tech Tips YouTube video on why DisplayPort is better than HDMI:
DisplayPort has an embedded mode (EDP) used in laptops and tablets to drive internal displays in a simpler, thinner way vs HDMI.
DisplayPort has a USB-C alt mode to deliver signals over USB-C ports, enabling charging and video over one cable. HDMI's alt mode was discontinued.
DisplayPort is royalty-free while HDMI charges device makers a per-unit royalty fee.
DisplayPort supports multi-stream transport for daisy chaining multiple monitors from one output.
DisplayPort can easily convert to HDMI signals via passive adapters, but not the reverse.
DisplayPort cables often have latches to lock them in place, preventing accidental disconnections.
Key advantages of DisplayPort are higher bandwidth, more flexibility, lower costs, and convenience features over HDMI. But HDMI remains widely used due to broader consumer electronics adoption.
In summary, the video makes the case that DisplayPort is technically superior to HDMI in several ways, though market dominance of HDMI persists. Both serve an important role in connectivity.
Thank fuck for this ai summary, it took seconds to read. I opened the video just to see how long it would take to watch it. 5 minutes of life would be gone, god damn it.
Do you know why we generally don't use DisplayPort instead of HDMI? I'm always interested in how lesser technologies proliferate.
HDMI came from the TV manufacturers and was earlier than DP. While DP came from VESA and Computer OEMs.
HDMI being in TVs gave it a far wider penetration in the consumer market, and so when people wanted to hookup their laptops and other devices to TVs, they'd need HDMI.
Ironically, as ports have been simplified to almost just USB-C on many devices, DP's market share actually grows as it's cheaper and easier to include for OEMs, and if the consumer has to buy an adapter anyway, it might as well be on their dime to pay for HDMI, rather than the phone or laptop maker.
I simply cannot stand LTT. I wish there was a TLDW bot on lemmy. I've seen it in a couple of posts.
Yes... it is a better way to consume this click bait content.
LTT makes power point slides into video with 2 ads, then YB will show it into your feed until you click it by mistake... no chill imho
They do make a lot of decent content but this shit is tiring
As an aside, I am loving SponserBlock. I no longer have to reach for the mouse to click ahead to the end of the ad.
On a <5 minute video?
DP has embedded, can be carried over USB-C, allowing for everything to be handled over a single cable, is handled on connector instead of device-internal interface allowing for smaller/thinner devices, DP daisy-chaining, licensing/royalty differences, etc.
One reason I loathe DP is how it's handling monitor presence in system when you power of monitor or switch input to 2nd port, it's equivalent of unhooking monitor from pc which screws up desktop layout in most cases. with one monitor it's not a problem but in multimonitor setup windows and task bars start jumping all over the place...
That's not really an issue with DP itself, but with the operating system handling unplugging, if you allow me to be pedantic.
How would you want that to be handled? The monitor is removed from the system. Do you want a phantom monitor to remain in place, with applications and desktop, no longer accessible?
That thumbnail formatting style is disgusting but they keep doing because I guess it works.
Yup, and I try to avoid channels that do it. That, and the clickbait titles. I'm not subbed to LTT for largely this reason, and I avoid many larger channels as well.
I guess it's my petty little boycott.
Look up the DeArrow extension. It'll purge all the shitty thumbnails and clickbait titles.
I really hope it gets integrated in ReVanced or NewPipe.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=qr-ACsQ1BXA&t=0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Because because because because because!
Because of the wonderful things it does!
We’re going to use DisplayPort! The best video connection interface!
It’s been super clearly demonstrated that you have to have thumbnails like that for your videos to be successful on YouTube.
You can be annoyed by it, and in fact, a ton of creators hate it. But it’s really not the creators’ fault that they have to do this.