Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Launches - Linux Benchmarks Coming

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by DanL View Post
    What about the backlash from people like me who don't want to be forced to pay HDMI fees and would rather buy an adapter if necessary? Dedicated computer monitors should be using DP.
    We are a minority.

    Apart from that I'd say DVI should just fucking die already.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
      Use Debian testing Xfce, the AMD wip kernel and Padoka ppa Mesa git cosmic version. Performance is much better than with Debian 9.8.
      Yeah, but it's basically Arch at this point.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Yeah, but it's basically Arch at this point.
        You can upgrade Debian 9.8 to buster. There is no sense to install arch Linuxes.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

          You can upgrade Debian 9.8 to buster. There is no sense to install arch Linuxes.
          You can update Arch forever. There is no sense to install Debian 9.8.

          Comment


          • #25
            Writing something to this moron is waste of time. His username already shows that he's just a troll.
            No matter what someone posts here, this monkey thinks he's always right.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              You can update Arch forever. There is no sense to install Debian 9.8.
              You can update Debian testing/sid forever and Debian has resource to make dependencies to work. Have been since year 2000 and Debian and its derivatives are more widely used than arch Linuxes and that increases software compatibility.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by towo2099 View Post
                Writing something to this moron is waste of time. His username already shows that he's just a troll.
                No matter what someone posts here, this monkey thinks he's always right.
                You can not stop personal insulting and talk about technology. Get a life.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post

                  Costs are always inevitably passed to the consumer, that's how economics works. So even though Samsung is paying a license fee to implement HDMI, that amount is built into the cost of the monitor that they sell to retailers who eventually sell it at their own increased price for a profit to you.
                  I understand how costs are passed to the consumer and that includes particular taxes, royalty fees, and IP licensing. But in this case, isn't this dependent on other factors? such as:
                  1) The royalty fee is a negligible part of the sale price. Even if the consumer is charged 5 dollars for that 15 cents, it is still going to be 105.5 dollars for my monitor (VAT here is 11%) instead of 100 and this is assuming the 100 already included VAT. An adapter to convert the hdmi cable that shipped with an hdmi monitor to display port costs 7 dollars. Those are inflated prices because things are more expensive in Lebanon and the same monitor costs 85 dollars in the US.
                  2) Consider the following scenario. I have two samsung 21.5" 1920x1080 monitors that I bought in early 2016. Crappy 60hz but they do fine for reading because the viewing area is excellent and they are likely to last at least another half a decade. Why would I want the technology I plan on using for the lifetime of my monitor to stop being supported by graphics cards? Won't that depreciate the value of my monitor beyond what an hdmi/dp adapter would have cost?
                  Last edited by hussam; 03-15-2019, 03:52 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by hussam View Post
                    Why would I want the technology I plan on using for the lifetime of my monitor to stop being supported by graphics cards? Won't that depreciate the value of my monitor beyond what an hdmi/dp adapter would have cost?
                    Is a decision about a better future for mankind really related to saving 14$ to use your current screens for another 5 years?

                    Because really, you are raising the argument that HDMI fee is negligible but also stating that 14$ over 5 years (or more) is significant enough that it justifies asking for HDMI to survive?

                    (yes I'm playing a bit devil's advocate. While I dislike HDMI I know it's silly to ask to remove it from GPUs as TVs and media-oriented equipment usually uses HDMI. I'm just pointing out your argument is a bit meh)

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      It would be incredibly stupid by monitor manufacturers to remove HDMI while many GPUs are currently using it. No sane business would do something this dumb. The ideal way would be to add other options and eventually deprecate the older ones. My monitor, for example, doesn't have a dvi port while the older model had both dvi and hdmi. VGA port is kept for compatibility.

                      And isn't "a better future for mankind" over the top? Is the future of mankind truly affected by this? Will removing HDMI ensure a better future for mankind?

                      I'm all for open or free standards but let us be practical here.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X