HDMI 2.0 is pointless

[bystander36]

You do have to have the connection available before you can create devices for it.

 

[EliteRetard]

Funny thing is I have never owned or used a display with anything newer than DVI.
I stepped up from VGA to DVI and then monitor resolution and quality fell through the floor and have taken 10 years to claw their way back and still haven't matched CRT.

 

[destrekor]

No I meant during the initial reveal and all that. The systems had it but I don't think there were any devices using it yet when they introduced it. To me it seemed Apple was putting the cart before the horse just a bit there.

What else is the solution to improved connection standards? Wait for product to use a standard that has nothing to connect to? Those don't exist - every standard is incorporated on SOME system first as a "cart before the horse" thing. That's how you make it available for other devices to utilize in the future. First generation ports on the computer tend to have a sparse collection of end-devices.

Nothing used USB when it was first revealed, it took a little while for devices to start using the standard. Once it's there, new generations are actually the exact same way. USB 3.0 devices came slowly, sometimes not at all due to a lack of requirement for that bandwidth increase. USB 2.0 devices came slowly after first reveal. You could sometimes buy a computer or motherboard with a new revision of a port standard, or a new port standard entirely, and possibly never have a need to use it until you get a replacement, and sometimes not even then.

USB did spin up faster in usage simply because it replaced PS/2 for many users. Comically enough, today you still have PS/2 holdouts for keyboards! It can actually be beneficial to use a PS/2 connection, but basically only if you need N-key rollover for crazy keyboard-centric gameplay where Actions Per Minute rule.

USB is now THE peripheral standard, and will be around at that level for a long time. Eventually 3.1c universal connectors will be more favored, but the standard remains. Almost every other standard is vying for a different market, mainly high-speed external data storage, dock-style connectivity, audio DACs and A/V production equipment, transfer of video, and in the near future, external GPUs that aren't bottlenecked and are retail-ready.

Thunderbolt 3 will have access to 4x PCIe 3.0 lanes. Which is 8x PCIe 2.0, and ultimately means it is plenty for most users and should be great for those who use professional GPUs, though it may bottleneck the current top of the line cards or the next generation if not now for gameplay.

 

[destrekor]

Funny thing is I have never owned or used a display with anything newer than DVI.
I stepped up from VGA to DVI and then monitor resolution and quality fell through the floor and have taken 10 years to claw their way back and still haven't matched CRT.

You are right in that CRTs have not been surpassed in many ways, but I definitely wouldn't want to be staring at a computer CRT for too long, you get eye fatigue real easy with them, and I don't miss that one bit.

But yep, I do hope many of the best features of CRT will eventually make it into a display tech that produces awesome monitors and displays in general. That's why I fell in love with Plasma, but that is obviously not a good computer use candidate. I fell in love with SED, but then that fell apart and went nowhere. A well-constructed OLED panel has the capability to be what we all desire, minus the perfect resolution scaling of CRT, but that is likely gone forever, a tube is simply not economical and would seem to be the only possible way to create a display without a specific resolution. OLED can basically match CRT color and pixel response, hopefully that scales down to affordable monitors in the next few years.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You do have to have the connection available before you can create devices for it.

Except when other connection methods were introduced, there were products that used them right away and very soon after.

 

[bystander36]

Except when other connection methods were introduced, there were products that used them right away and very soon after.

No, all new connections came before the products were available to use them. Sometimes they might introduce them at the same time, but that is not the standard.

Why on earth would a company build a product for a connection type that doesn't exist yet? The new connection type has to be the first to exist, or at the least, they can be introduced at the same time. If they do introduce them at the same time, that product will not do well in sales, as only people with brand new computers, with the latest tech, can even use it. If they introduce them before, it won't sell at all.

In your expression, you got it backwards. Making the connection before the product that uses it, is akin to putting the "Horse before the cart." The cart is the product being used, the horse just allows it to function, just like a connection port allows a device to function.

 

[cmdrdredd]

No, all new connections came before the products were available to use them. Sometimes they might introduce them at the same time, but that is not the standard.

Why on earth would a company build a product for a connection type that doesn't exist yet? The new connection type has to be the first to exist, or at the least, they can be introduced at the same time. If they do introduce them at the same time, that product will not do well in sales, as only people with brand new computers, with the latest tech, can even use it. If they introduce them before, it won't sell at all.

In your expression, you got it backwards. Making the connection before the product that uses it, is akin to putting the "Horse before the cart." The cart is the product being used, the horse just allows it to function, just like a connection port allows a device to function.

You guys always say stuff in reply that people never said. You need to read what is written. I said at the same time not before. Many times they work together with companies building products so that there are uses for it immediately. Apple doesn't or didn't.

 

[bystander36]

You guys always say stuff in reply that people never said. You need to read what is written. I said at the same time not before. Many times they work together with companies building products so that there are uses for it immediately. Apple doesn't or didn't.

No I meant during the initial reveal and all that. The systems had it but I don't think there were any devices using it yet when they introduced it. To me it seemed Apple was putting the cart before the horse just a bit there.

Well, you posted twice. I guess I don't follow what you are talking about then.

It might make sense for Apple, with so much control of their ecosystem, to have products out of the gate (and they may have had professional stuff that was ready), but not necessarily for the PC ecosystem. They offer a connection type, and let the market decide how or if they want to use it. They don't control what people do with the options they give.

 

[EliteRetard]

You are right in that CRTs have not been surpassed in many ways, but I definitely wouldn't want to be staring at a computer CRT for too long, you get eye fatigue real easy with them, and I don't miss that one bit.

*snip*

I always hear people say that CRTs cause fatigue but I find the exact opposite. I also always hear that LCD is "sharper", but again I find exact opposite. With high refresh rates and paper like whites I can look at my CRT for hours no problem. Everybody else' LCD with its searing off color whites and low refresh rates makes my eyes hurt. Also the really low resolution makes everything giant and blocky, 1080 at 24-27" looks bad. My 1440 at 20" is much sharper looking to me, and I have no issues of any kind with geometry or convergence even after a decade +. I am nearing the limits of calibration though, I have adjusted it over time and the red and blue colors are far more worn out than green, so the brightness and contrast ratios for each of the colors are at opposite ends of adjust-ability. This CRT has a decent degauss plus a color return feature...but I think the hardware is just finally wearing out.

I think my ideal monitor now would be something like those ultra-wides at 3440x1440, so I don't loose vertical height but gain width. I could probably do that at 24" maybe 27". Make it like a nice IPS or better, with good color and brightness uniformity, and support for 90-96Hz (w/ adaptive refresh). 120-144 is a bit overkill and to hard to drive.