<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_176220</id>
	<title>Apple's Mini DisplayPort Officially Adopted By VESA</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257873120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DJRumpy writes <i>"The Video Electronics Standard Association officially issued its <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/apples\_mini\_displayport\_officially\_adopted\_by\_vesa.html">Mini DisplayPort standard</a> Tuesday, based on the technology licensed from Apple. VESA said that all devices using the Mini DisplayPort connector must meet the specifications required by the DisplayPort 1.1a standard, and cables that support the standard must also meet specific electrical specifications. It's a formal confirmation of the news from earlier this year, when VESA announced the Mini DisplayPort connector would be included in the forthcoming DisplayPort 1.2 specification."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DJRumpy writes " The Video Electronics Standard Association officially issued its Mini DisplayPort standard Tuesday , based on the technology licensed from Apple .
VESA said that all devices using the Mini DisplayPort connector must meet the specifications required by the DisplayPort 1.1a standard , and cables that support the standard must also meet specific electrical specifications .
It 's a formal confirmation of the news from earlier this year , when VESA announced the Mini DisplayPort connector would be included in the forthcoming DisplayPort 1.2 specification .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DJRumpy writes "The Video Electronics Standard Association officially issued its Mini DisplayPort standard Tuesday, based on the technology licensed from Apple.
VESA said that all devices using the Mini DisplayPort connector must meet the specifications required by the DisplayPort 1.1a standard, and cables that support the standard must also meet specific electrical specifications.
It's a formal confirmation of the news from earlier this year, when VESA announced the Mini DisplayPort connector would be included in the forthcoming DisplayPort 1.2 specification.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049612</id>
	<title>Re:Because that might work with projectors</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1257883500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector.</i></p><p>Sounds like you don't know how to properly attach a connector.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac users want that distinctive green , blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector.Sounds like you do n't know how to properly attach a connector.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector.Sounds like you don't know how to properly attach a connector.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30064938</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream. Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires. But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires. Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels. There can be 1, 2 or 4 digital lanes, similar to how PCI express works, more lanes = more bandwidth. The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps (3 meter cable limit)and there is also a 1mbps aux channel. A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal. Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.</p><p>The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on. Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector. Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws.</p></div><p>DP on the long term have many advantages to HDMI :<br>- DP 1.1 support data rate up to 10.8 Gbits/s and DP1.2 (near completion) will support up to 21.6 Gbits/s. HDMI today runs up to 6.4 Gbits/s (or 8.8 Gbits/s in latest systems). HDMI will have difficulties to follow these rates.<br>- Clock is embedded in each pair , allowing for better signal integrity on longer cables and each pair runs at the same speed whatever the resolution is, simplifying the design.<br>- lower power to operate than HDMI/DVI<br>- HDMI runs with voltages of 3.3V which is incompatible with lower process geometries (32nm and beyond). DP is not having such bottlenecks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream .
Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires .
But display port is a packet based system so audo , video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires .
Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels .
There can be 1 , 2 or 4 digital lanes , similar to how PCI express works , more lanes = more bandwidth .
The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps ( 3 meter cable limit ) and there is also a 1mbps aux channel .
A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal .
Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on .
Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector .
Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws.DP on the long term have many advantages to HDMI : - DP 1.1 support data rate up to 10.8 Gbits/s and DP1.2 ( near completion ) will support up to 21.6 Gbits/s .
HDMI today runs up to 6.4 Gbits/s ( or 8.8 Gbits/s in latest systems ) .
HDMI will have difficulties to follow these rates.- Clock is embedded in each pair , allowing for better signal integrity on longer cables and each pair runs at the same speed whatever the resolution is , simplifying the design.- lower power to operate than HDMI/DVI- HDMI runs with voltages of 3.3V which is incompatible with lower process geometries ( 32nm and beyond ) .
DP is not having such bottlenecks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream.
Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires.
But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires.
Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels.
There can be 1, 2 or 4 digital lanes, similar to how PCI express works, more lanes = more bandwidth.
The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps (3 meter cable limit)and there is also a 1mbps aux channel.
A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal.
Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on.
Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector.
Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws.DP on the long term have many advantages to HDMI :- DP 1.1 support data rate up to 10.8 Gbits/s and DP1.2 (near completion) will support up to 21.6 Gbits/s.
HDMI today runs up to 6.4 Gbits/s (or 8.8 Gbits/s in latest systems).
HDMI will have difficulties to follow these rates.- Clock is embedded in each pair , allowing for better signal integrity on longer cables and each pair runs at the same speed whatever the resolution is, simplifying the design.- lower power to operate than HDMI/DVI- HDMI runs with voltages of 3.3V which is incompatible with lower process geometries (32nm and beyond).
DP is not having such bottlenecks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048838</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>vijayiyer</author>
	<datestamp>1257880500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mini-DP is royalty free. HDMI is not.<br>Mini-DP is packetized and can be switched and, in principle, carry multiple streams over a single connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mini-DP is royalty free .
HDMI is not.Mini-DP is packetized and can be switched and , in principle , carry multiple streams over a single connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mini-DP is royalty free.
HDMI is not.Mini-DP is packetized and can be switched and, in principle, carry multiple streams over a single connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30056892</id>
	<title>But where to get the adapters???</title>
	<author>GPLHost-Thomas</author>
	<datestamp>1257881040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In short: there are much more important reasons for being unhappy about today's laptops than just needing an adapter.<br>
Longer story: I live in Shanghai, and because prices for IBM/Lenovo laptops are nearly twice the price, and that the latest version are coming 6 months later in China, even though they are produced here, I bought a laptop in USA and asked a friend to ship it. That was last year.<br>
As my internal laptop LCD is in 1680x1050, I wanted a quite big external screen so that it could be bigger (I now have one that can do 1920x1080). The fact is that with normal VGA, the picture quality is not worth investing the money of a big screen. So I wanted to use a digital output. That T500 came with a DisplayPort integrated, but no DVI or HDMI.<br>
Unlike others, I didn't mind getting an adapter. I had a look in taobao, to know where to get in in Shanghai. And it took ONE FULL YEAR until I was able to buy a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter (in fact, in the same shop that didn't have it a year ago). No screen with DisplayPort are in the shop either, even right now.<br>
While needing an adapter is not a real issue (only moronic idiots in this site will complain about it, while I believe this is the price to pay for evolution), and I didn't care about the fact it was expensive or not (mine cost me only 85 yuan which is quite cheap), their availability is CAPITAL. My situation was really silly and I hated it. Shipping a computer with a connector on which you cannot connect anything is REAL STUPIDITY. Lucky for people using the mDP, I think that there's quite some adapters around, because it has been a need for Mac users for a long time. So this time, this is really not an issue. The only stupidity here is that this connector doesn't have sound support.<br>
Oh, forgot: thanks to IBM/Lenovo for NOT connecting the sound on that DisplayPort either... maybe the reason is that it would have cost one dollar more? I'd like to know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In short : there are much more important reasons for being unhappy about today 's laptops than just needing an adapter .
Longer story : I live in Shanghai , and because prices for IBM/Lenovo laptops are nearly twice the price , and that the latest version are coming 6 months later in China , even though they are produced here , I bought a laptop in USA and asked a friend to ship it .
That was last year .
As my internal laptop LCD is in 1680x1050 , I wanted a quite big external screen so that it could be bigger ( I now have one that can do 1920x1080 ) .
The fact is that with normal VGA , the picture quality is not worth investing the money of a big screen .
So I wanted to use a digital output .
That T500 came with a DisplayPort integrated , but no DVI or HDMI .
Unlike others , I did n't mind getting an adapter .
I had a look in taobao , to know where to get in in Shanghai .
And it took ONE FULL YEAR until I was able to buy a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter ( in fact , in the same shop that did n't have it a year ago ) .
No screen with DisplayPort are in the shop either , even right now .
While needing an adapter is not a real issue ( only moronic idiots in this site will complain about it , while I believe this is the price to pay for evolution ) , and I did n't care about the fact it was expensive or not ( mine cost me only 85 yuan which is quite cheap ) , their availability is CAPITAL .
My situation was really silly and I hated it .
Shipping a computer with a connector on which you can not connect anything is REAL STUPIDITY .
Lucky for people using the mDP , I think that there 's quite some adapters around , because it has been a need for Mac users for a long time .
So this time , this is really not an issue .
The only stupidity here is that this connector does n't have sound support .
Oh , forgot : thanks to IBM/Lenovo for NOT connecting the sound on that DisplayPort either... maybe the reason is that it would have cost one dollar more ?
I 'd like to know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short: there are much more important reasons for being unhappy about today's laptops than just needing an adapter.
Longer story: I live in Shanghai, and because prices for IBM/Lenovo laptops are nearly twice the price, and that the latest version are coming 6 months later in China, even though they are produced here, I bought a laptop in USA and asked a friend to ship it.
That was last year.
As my internal laptop LCD is in 1680x1050, I wanted a quite big external screen so that it could be bigger (I now have one that can do 1920x1080).
The fact is that with normal VGA, the picture quality is not worth investing the money of a big screen.
So I wanted to use a digital output.
That T500 came with a DisplayPort integrated, but no DVI or HDMI.
Unlike others, I didn't mind getting an adapter.
I had a look in taobao, to know where to get in in Shanghai.
And it took ONE FULL YEAR until I was able to buy a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter (in fact, in the same shop that didn't have it a year ago).
No screen with DisplayPort are in the shop either, even right now.
While needing an adapter is not a real issue (only moronic idiots in this site will complain about it, while I believe this is the price to pay for evolution), and I didn't care about the fact it was expensive or not (mine cost me only 85 yuan which is quite cheap), their availability is CAPITAL.
My situation was really silly and I hated it.
Shipping a computer with a connector on which you cannot connect anything is REAL STUPIDITY.
Lucky for people using the mDP, I think that there's quite some adapters around, because it has been a need for Mac users for a long time.
So this time, this is really not an issue.
The only stupidity here is that this connector doesn't have sound support.
Oh, forgot: thanks to IBM/Lenovo for NOT connecting the sound on that DisplayPort either... maybe the reason is that it would have cost one dollar more?
I'd like to know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048276</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>u0berdev</author>
	<datestamp>1257878580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't)...</p></div><p>
Actually the DisplayPort (and now Mini DisplayPort) standard DOES support audio, it's simply that Apple's DisplayPort offerings are not taking advantage of it.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it supports audio over the connection ( Mini-DP does n't ) .. . Actually the DisplayPort ( and now Mini DisplayPort ) standard DOES support audio , it 's simply that Apple 's DisplayPort offerings are not taking advantage of it .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't)...
Actually the DisplayPort (and now Mini DisplayPort) standard DOES support audio, it's simply that Apple's DisplayPort offerings are not taking advantage of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048252</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1257878460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know Apple's laptops don't currently send audio over Mini-DP, but I thought the protocol/cable supported audio, even if Apple isn't using it.</p><p>Am I just wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know Apple 's laptops do n't currently send audio over Mini-DP , but I thought the protocol/cable supported audio , even if Apple is n't using it.Am I just wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know Apple's laptops don't currently send audio over Mini-DP, but I thought the protocol/cable supported audio, even if Apple isn't using it.Am I just wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810</id>
	<title>I hope it catches on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism. Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism .
Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism.
Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054240</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it catches on</title>
	<author>TrancePhreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257861300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The connector on my Mac Mini is always loose. If only there were some kind of screw connection to keep it in place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The connector on my Mac Mini is always loose .
If only there were some kind of screw connection to keep it in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The connector on my Mac Mini is always loose.
If only there were some kind of screw connection to keep it in place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049064</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>caution live frogs</author>
	<datestamp>1257881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there is a lot of DRM baggage associated with HDMI - so this could be Apple's attempt to do an end-run around the MPAA. In my mind this is a GOOD thing. We still get digital output, but we can use it as we see fit. Unless the Mini-DP also includes built-in DRM, in which case we're all screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is a lot of DRM baggage associated with HDMI - so this could be Apple 's attempt to do an end-run around the MPAA .
In my mind this is a GOOD thing .
We still get digital output , but we can use it as we see fit .
Unless the Mini-DP also includes built-in DRM , in which case we 're all screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is a lot of DRM baggage associated with HDMI - so this could be Apple's attempt to do an end-run around the MPAA.
In my mind this is a GOOD thing.
We still get digital output, but we can use it as we see fit.
Unless the Mini-DP also includes built-in DRM, in which case we're all screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049652</id>
	<title>this is Microsoft's playbook, but in bizarro world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257883680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  make a proprietary, slightly modified version of the earlier standard<br>2.  get adopted.<br>3.  standard takes YOU</p><p>wait what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. make a proprietary , slightly modified version of the earlier standard2 .
get adopted.3 .
standard takes YOUwait what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.  make a proprietary, slightly modified version of the earlier standard2.
get adopted.3.
standard takes YOUwait what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048428</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it catches on</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1257879060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism. Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.</p></div><p>Typical response from you so-called "computer user" kids these days.  Back in my day, everything had screws!  From the case to the cards to the plugs and sometimes the boxes everything came in!  And our fingers were perfectly good enough for the job!  Even the ones that weren't thumbscrews!  Any one of the old-timers could grind your mabmly-pambly little soft, precious, pampered thumbs to dust, bones and all, with nothing but our bare fingers, and we wouldn't even flinch!</p><p>Now get off my lawn!  Durn whippersnappers...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism .
Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.Typical response from you so-called " computer user " kids these days .
Back in my day , everything had screws !
From the case to the cards to the plugs and sometimes the boxes everything came in !
And our fingers were perfectly good enough for the job !
Even the ones that were n't thumbscrews !
Any one of the old-timers could grind your mabmly-pambly little soft , precious , pampered thumbs to dust , bones and all , with nothing but our bare fingers , and we would n't even flinch ! Now get off my lawn !
Durn whippersnappers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism.
Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.Typical response from you so-called "computer user" kids these days.
Back in my day, everything had screws!
From the case to the cards to the plugs and sometimes the boxes everything came in!
And our fingers were perfectly good enough for the job!
Even the ones that weren't thumbscrews!
Any one of the old-timers could grind your mabmly-pambly little soft, precious, pampered thumbs to dust, bones and all, with nothing but our bare fingers, and we wouldn't even flinch!Now get off my lawn!
Durn whippersnappers...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048372</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1257878880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HDMI's signaling is basically a single DVI link, and isn't rated to push anything past 1920x1200</p></div><p>And just to complete the thought: the Mini DiplayPort goes to 2560x1600 and goes up to 8.64 Gbits/second.   That's about twice as fast as the HDMI 1.2.</p><p>HDMI 1.3 is actually comparable to Mini DisplayPort, with very similar specifications in terms of bandwidth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI 's signaling is basically a single DVI link , and is n't rated to push anything past 1920x1200And just to complete the thought : the Mini DiplayPort goes to 2560x1600 and goes up to 8.64 Gbits/second .
That 's about twice as fast as the HDMI 1.2.HDMI 1.3 is actually comparable to Mini DisplayPort , with very similar specifications in terms of bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI's signaling is basically a single DVI link, and isn't rated to push anything past 1920x1200And just to complete the thought: the Mini DiplayPort goes to 2560x1600 and goes up to 8.64 Gbits/second.
That's about twice as fast as the HDMI 1.2.HDMI 1.3 is actually comparable to Mini DisplayPort, with very similar specifications in terms of bandwidth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049370</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1257882480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream. Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires. But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires.</p></div><p>DVI, HDMI, and DP are all packet based systems.  DVI and HDMI have three lanes (DVI-DL has six) and DP has four lanes.  All of them send all data over all lanes.  There is no specialization of the data channels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream .
Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires .
But display port is a packet based system so audo , video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires.DVI , HDMI , and DP are all packet based systems .
DVI and HDMI have three lanes ( DVI-DL has six ) and DP has four lanes .
All of them send all data over all lanes .
There is no specialization of the data channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream.
Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires.
But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires.DVI, HDMI, and DP are all packet based systems.
DVI and HDMI have three lanes (DVI-DL has six) and DP has four lanes.
All of them send all data over all lanes.
There is no specialization of the data channels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30051124</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1257846540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My problem with HDMI is the port design itself.  I had a Tivo HD using an HDMI cable and I unplugged it maybe a dozen or so times in under a year.</p><p>One of the times I guess I wound up killing the Tivo's socket and couldn't fix it.</p><p>There are a lot of horror stories out there about that.  Too tight of a cable or cable gets moved to the side a little while moving some equipment around and pretty soon your thing can become toast.</p><p>Personally I like the old DVI/VGA way of doing things.  Usually the worst you can do is screw up the pins on a cable which is no big deal... annoying but no big deal.  Even the Component/RCA plugs aren't that bad, though I've had friends with too tight plug/cable combos yanking the whole thing out of their TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem with HDMI is the port design itself .
I had a Tivo HD using an HDMI cable and I unplugged it maybe a dozen or so times in under a year.One of the times I guess I wound up killing the Tivo 's socket and could n't fix it.There are a lot of horror stories out there about that .
Too tight of a cable or cable gets moved to the side a little while moving some equipment around and pretty soon your thing can become toast.Personally I like the old DVI/VGA way of doing things .
Usually the worst you can do is screw up the pins on a cable which is no big deal... annoying but no big deal .
Even the Component/RCA plugs are n't that bad , though I 've had friends with too tight plug/cable combos yanking the whole thing out of their TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem with HDMI is the port design itself.
I had a Tivo HD using an HDMI cable and I unplugged it maybe a dozen or so times in under a year.One of the times I guess I wound up killing the Tivo's socket and couldn't fix it.There are a lot of horror stories out there about that.
Too tight of a cable or cable gets moved to the side a little while moving some equipment around and pretty soon your thing can become toast.Personally I like the old DVI/VGA way of doing things.
Usually the worst you can do is screw up the pins on a cable which is no big deal... annoying but no big deal.
Even the Component/RCA plugs aren't that bad, though I've had friends with too tight plug/cable combos yanking the whole thing out of their TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054060</id>
	<title>Licensed from Apple?</title>
	<author>misnohmer</author>
	<datestamp>1257860220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean anyone using it must pay royalties to Apple? Is this another exFAT (a.k.a. FAT64 - Microsoft proprietary technology in the new SD standard)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean anyone using it must pay royalties to Apple ?
Is this another exFAT ( a.k.a .
FAT64 - Microsoft proprietary technology in the new SD standard ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean anyone using it must pay royalties to Apple?
Is this another exFAT (a.k.a.
FAT64 - Microsoft proprietary technology in the new SD standard)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053138</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Puchku</author>
	<datestamp>1257855120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Curious.. which iMac? the new one? 24 in or 27 in? some more detail would be nice..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious.. which iMac ?
the new one ?
24 in or 27 in ?
some more detail would be nice. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious.. which iMac?
the new one?
24 in or 27 in?
some more detail would be nice..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049720</id>
	<title>"10 percent the size"????</title>
	<author>SocPres</author>
	<datestamp>1257883920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The caption under the pic in the article says:
<p>
"The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a full DVI connector."
</p><p>
Perhaps the ports pictured are not to scale, but the picture of the Mini port is ~43x29 pixels, while the DVI is ~134x52.  That puts it closer to 17.5\% of the size, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The caption under the pic in the article says : " The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a full DVI connector .
" Perhaps the ports pictured are not to scale , but the picture of the Mini port is ~ 43x29 pixels , while the DVI is ~ 134x52 .
That puts it closer to 17.5 \ % of the size , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The caption under the pic in the article says:

"The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a full DVI connector.
"

Perhaps the ports pictured are not to scale, but the picture of the Mini port is ~43x29 pixels, while the DVI is ~134x52.
That puts it closer to 17.5\% of the size, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048282</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't)</p></div></blockquote><p>

Huh? I have an iMac connected to a 24" Cinema over Mini-DP and it does sound, is it some black magic from Apple that makes it work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it supports audio over the connection ( Mini-DP does n't ) Huh ?
I have an iMac connected to a 24 " Cinema over Mini-DP and it does sound , is it some black magic from Apple that makes it work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't)

Huh?
I have an iMac connected to a 24" Cinema over Mini-DP and it does sound, is it some black magic from Apple that makes it work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30050788</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257844980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm holding out for the Micro DisplayPort standard.  I'll bet that Apple will announce such a thing within a year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm holding out for the Micro DisplayPort standard .
I 'll bet that Apple will announce such a thing within a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm holding out for the Micro DisplayPort standard.
I'll bet that Apple will announce such a thing within a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047820</id>
	<title>Cue the linux trolls.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We know this has nothing at all to do with Linux or OS X, but this has never stopped this jolly crowd from doing "granny attacks", lunging from under their stones, when the topic is related to Apple. Set forth, gentleboys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know this has nothing at all to do with Linux or OS X , but this has never stopped this jolly crowd from doing " granny attacks " , lunging from under their stones , when the topic is related to Apple .
Set forth , gentleboys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know this has nothing at all to do with Linux or OS X, but this has never stopped this jolly crowd from doing "granny attacks", lunging from under their stones, when the topic is related to Apple.
Set forth, gentleboys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048642</id>
	<title>That settles that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is the greatest company of all time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is the greatest company of all time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is the greatest company of all time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053708</id>
	<title>they need light too</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the time, it's the Apple fanboys hogging the spotlight.  Doesn't matter what the article is about, according to them, Apple did it first and did it best, and anybody who disagreed is modded into oblivion as a troll.</p><p>So, give the Linux trolls a break; occasionally, they need light to.  And it's better if they come out over something as insignificant as a smaller DVI connector than if they start dismantling Apple's claims to novelty, innovation, and quality.  We wouldn't want that, would we.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the time , it 's the Apple fanboys hogging the spotlight .
Does n't matter what the article is about , according to them , Apple did it first and did it best , and anybody who disagreed is modded into oblivion as a troll.So , give the Linux trolls a break ; occasionally , they need light to .
And it 's better if they come out over something as insignificant as a smaller DVI connector than if they start dismantling Apple 's claims to novelty , innovation , and quality .
We would n't want that , would we .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the time, it's the Apple fanboys hogging the spotlight.
Doesn't matter what the article is about, according to them, Apple did it first and did it best, and anybody who disagreed is modded into oblivion as a troll.So, give the Linux trolls a break; occasionally, they need light to.
And it's better if they come out over something as insignificant as a smaller DVI connector than if they start dismantling Apple's claims to novelty, innovation, and quality.
We wouldn't want that, would we.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048244</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with any modern connector is licensing.  Every time you buy a cable, or a device with {XYZ connector}, some smug bastard gets paid for "inventing" that connector.  It's rarely about "what is technically superior", usually it's "what's the cheapest standard we can shove down people's throats".</p><p>Licensing is why today's computers have umpteen slow inefficient USB ports, and zero or one Firewire ports.  Apple fucked that one up by charging $20 or so per Firewire device for the longest time, they only lowered the licensing fee long after the war was lost.</p><p>The thing about VESA though, none of the major manufacturers really give a crap what VESA thinks.  VESA dreams up these "standards", charges a lot of money for the specs, which results in them being largely ignored.  The freebies they offer are mostly crap, either obsolete or just plain old stupid.  They're like the IEEE's retarded step-cousin, on crack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with any modern connector is licensing .
Every time you buy a cable , or a device with { XYZ connector } , some smug bastard gets paid for " inventing " that connector .
It 's rarely about " what is technically superior " , usually it 's " what 's the cheapest standard we can shove down people 's throats " .Licensing is why today 's computers have umpteen slow inefficient USB ports , and zero or one Firewire ports .
Apple fucked that one up by charging $ 20 or so per Firewire device for the longest time , they only lowered the licensing fee long after the war was lost.The thing about VESA though , none of the major manufacturers really give a crap what VESA thinks .
VESA dreams up these " standards " , charges a lot of money for the specs , which results in them being largely ignored .
The freebies they offer are mostly crap , either obsolete or just plain old stupid .
They 're like the IEEE 's retarded step-cousin , on crack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with any modern connector is licensing.
Every time you buy a cable, or a device with {XYZ connector}, some smug bastard gets paid for "inventing" that connector.
It's rarely about "what is technically superior", usually it's "what's the cheapest standard we can shove down people's throats".Licensing is why today's computers have umpteen slow inefficient USB ports, and zero or one Firewire ports.
Apple fucked that one up by charging $20 or so per Firewire device for the longest time, they only lowered the licensing fee long after the war was lost.The thing about VESA though, none of the major manufacturers really give a crap what VESA thinks.
VESA dreams up these "standards", charges a lot of money for the specs, which results in them being largely ignored.
The freebies they offer are mostly crap, either obsolete or just plain old stupid.
They're like the IEEE's retarded step-cousin, on crack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049682</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1257883800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet, you're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet , you 're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet, you're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048356</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, how about support dual-link DVI data rates and above on the same connector? There's a "Type B" HDMI connector in the standard that can support higher resolutions, but it's not on any devices at the moment. Not to mention the ability to do things like chain displays together on a single connection, which allows things like the new Radeon card driving 12(!) displays from 6 ports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , how about support dual-link DVI data rates and above on the same connector ?
There 's a " Type B " HDMI connector in the standard that can support higher resolutions , but it 's not on any devices at the moment .
Not to mention the ability to do things like chain displays together on a single connection , which allows things like the new Radeon card driving 12 ( !
) displays from 6 ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, how about support dual-link DVI data rates and above on the same connector?
There's a "Type B" HDMI connector in the standard that can support higher resolutions, but it's not on any devices at the moment.
Not to mention the ability to do things like chain displays together on a single connection, which allows things like the new Radeon card driving 12(!
) displays from 6 ports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30151796</id>
	<title>MDP is the best video connector.</title>
	<author>davvr6</author>
	<datestamp>1257085860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you compare the Single DVI , VGA , or even the full sized DisplayPort an awful connector!, the Mini Display Port is as simple to use as USB, the others are cumbersome and outmoded .
Too bad it didn't fully encompass Dual DVI.
On Desktop I have Dual DVI too and I am getting decent calibrations with either.
There is some USB + MDP adapter for other macs but I would somehow miss a good old Dual DVI cable firmly screwed in ( reminding me of scsi ) but I am shocked to see decent,  and sometimes better  calibration from MDP adapter than over the direct DVI itself.
Though via MDP DDC EDID now have pretty good support for most graphic cards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you compare the Single DVI , VGA , or even the full sized DisplayPort an awful connector ! , the Mini Display Port is as simple to use as USB , the others are cumbersome and outmoded .
Too bad it did n't fully encompass Dual DVI .
On Desktop I have Dual DVI too and I am getting decent calibrations with either .
There is some USB + MDP adapter for other macs but I would somehow miss a good old Dual DVI cable firmly screwed in ( reminding me of scsi ) but I am shocked to see decent , and sometimes better calibration from MDP adapter than over the direct DVI itself .
Though via MDP DDC EDID now have pretty good support for most graphic cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you compare the Single DVI , VGA , or even the full sized DisplayPort an awful connector!, the Mini Display Port is as simple to use as USB, the others are cumbersome and outmoded .
Too bad it didn't fully encompass Dual DVI.
On Desktop I have Dual DVI too and I am getting decent calibrations with either.
There is some USB + MDP adapter for other macs but I would somehow miss a good old Dual DVI cable firmly screwed in ( reminding me of scsi ) but I am shocked to see decent,  and sometimes better  calibration from MDP adapter than over the direct DVI itself.
Though via MDP DDC EDID now have pretty good support for most graphic cards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047988</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it catches on</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1257877680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's even worse than that. DVI connectors have a ridiculous pin arrangement. What the fuck is with that horizontal pin that makes it a pain to fit and easier to damage? What possible use can that serve? It's worse than an old VGA connector ever was. What's even worse is knowing that DVI is HDMI compatible and having a simply HDMI cable and connector was forfeited for that crap design for some unfathomable reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even worse than that .
DVI connectors have a ridiculous pin arrangement .
What the fuck is with that horizontal pin that makes it a pain to fit and easier to damage ?
What possible use can that serve ?
It 's worse than an old VGA connector ever was .
What 's even worse is knowing that DVI is HDMI compatible and having a simply HDMI cable and connector was forfeited for that crap design for some unfathomable reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even worse than that.
DVI connectors have a ridiculous pin arrangement.
What the fuck is with that horizontal pin that makes it a pain to fit and easier to damage?
What possible use can that serve?
It's worse than an old VGA connector ever was.
What's even worse is knowing that DVI is HDMI compatible and having a simply HDMI cable and connector was forfeited for that crap design for some unfathomable reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30125630</id>
	<title>The USB of display connectors</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1258391100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mini-DisplayPort is the same height as USB, and like USB is hot-pluggable, and backwards-compatible with both DVI and VGA connectors. It's a great plug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mini-DisplayPort is the same height as USB , and like USB is hot-pluggable , and backwards-compatible with both DVI and VGA connectors .
It 's a great plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mini-DisplayPort is the same height as USB, and like USB is hot-pluggable, and backwards-compatible with both DVI and VGA connectors.
It's a great plug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048038</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>pele</author>
	<datestamp>1257877800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my sentiments exaclty!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my sentiments exaclty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my sentiments exaclty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30065154</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps</i> </p><p>That's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.</p><p> <i>display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal</i> </p><p>That's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 &#215; 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 &#215; 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.</p><p>So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.</p><p>Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps</i> </p><p>That's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.</p><p> <i>display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal</i> </p><p>That's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 &#215; 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 &#215; 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.</p><p>So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.</p><p>Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.</p></div><p>How much is 4096x2160 24Hz : around 8Gbits/s . And guess how much datarate is 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp : around 7Gbits/s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps That 's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s .
display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal That 's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840   2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096   2160 at 24Hz , you know , full cinema spec.So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.Thank fsck they 'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years .
The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps That 's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s .
display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal That 's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840   2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096   2160 at 24Hz , you know , full cinema spec.So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.Thank fsck they 'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.How much is 4096x2160 24Hz : around 8Gbits/s .
And guess how much datarate is 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp : around 7Gbits/s ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps That's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.
display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal That's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 × 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 × 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.
The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps That's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.
display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal That's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 × 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 × 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.How much is 4096x2160 24Hz : around 8Gbits/s .
And guess how much datarate is 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp : around 7Gbits/s ....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053574</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1257857340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they compare it with HDMI?  They'd rather be misleading and say "The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a <b>full DVI connector</b>" (emphasis mine), which, if the images on that page are actual size, is also wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they compare it with HDMI ?
They 'd rather be misleading and say " The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a full DVI connector " ( emphasis mine ) , which , if the images on that page are actual size , is also wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they compare it with HDMI?
They'd rather be misleading and say "The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a full DVI connector" (emphasis mine), which, if the images on that page are actual size, is also wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048292</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happened to HDMI?</p></div><p>It was made long before DisplayPort as a DVI replacement. HDMI requires royalties and licensing (DP does not). It is also using a CRT-like raster scan and needs a heartbeat, with sound being transmitted during "blanking" (DP transmits data packets and has an embedded clock). Finally, the hardware is more expensive to produce and more complex.</p><p>I'm sure someone knows more - this is what I remember reading some time ago...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to HDMI ? It was made long before DisplayPort as a DVI replacement .
HDMI requires royalties and licensing ( DP does not ) .
It is also using a CRT-like raster scan and needs a heartbeat , with sound being transmitted during " blanking " ( DP transmits data packets and has an embedded clock ) .
Finally , the hardware is more expensive to produce and more complex.I 'm sure someone knows more - this is what I remember reading some time ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to HDMI?It was made long before DisplayPort as a DVI replacement.
HDMI requires royalties and licensing (DP does not).
It is also using a CRT-like raster scan and needs a heartbeat, with sound being transmitted during "blanking" (DP transmits data packets and has an embedded clock).
Finally, the hardware is more expensive to produce and more complex.I'm sure someone knows more - this is what I remember reading some time ago...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049458</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps</i></p><p>That's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.</p><p><i>display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal</i></p><p>That's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 &#215; 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 &#215; 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.</p><p>So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.</p><p>Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum bandwidth is over 8GbpsThat 's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signalThat 's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840   2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096   2160 at 24Hz , you know , full cinema spec.So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.Thank fsck they 'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The maximum bandwidth is over 8GbpsThat's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signalThat's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 × 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 × 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30055368</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1257868020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet, you're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.</p><p>-jcr</p></div><p>No it doesn't. It has rules on signal performance and if you can manage that, it can be a mile long.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet , you 're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.-jcrNo it does n't .
It has rules on signal performance and if you can manage that , it can be a mile long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet, you're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.-jcrNo it doesn't.
It has rules on signal performance and if you can manage that, it can be a mile long.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30122862</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>bryan1945</author>
	<datestamp>1258371120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not trying to be mean, but buy a better cable next time.  Even though cheap, monoprice seems to have very nice cables (my dad and I use a bunch, including a 25 foot HDMI from my laptop to the TV).  Yes, maybe lucky.  Who knows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trying to be mean , but buy a better cable next time .
Even though cheap , monoprice seems to have very nice cables ( my dad and I use a bunch , including a 25 foot HDMI from my laptop to the TV ) .
Yes , maybe lucky .
Who knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trying to be mean, but buy a better cable next time.
Even though cheap, monoprice seems to have very nice cables (my dad and I use a bunch, including a 25 foot HDMI from my laptop to the TV).
Yes, maybe lucky.
Who knows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054056</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Chaos Incarnate</author>
	<datestamp>1257860220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suspect that if Intel doesn't manage to run it by the wayside in a year's time with Lights Peak, you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs.</p></div><p>We're already seeing video cards with <i>full-sized</i> DisplayPort, plus HDMI, plus DVI, like the Radeon 5850 and 5870.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that if Intel does n't manage to run it by the wayside in a year 's time with Lights Peak , you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs.We 're already seeing video cards with full-sized DisplayPort , plus HDMI , plus DVI , like the Radeon 5850 and 5870 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that if Intel doesn't manage to run it by the wayside in a year's time with Lights Peak, you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs.We're already seeing video cards with full-sized DisplayPort, plus HDMI, plus DVI, like the Radeon 5850 and 5870.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049078</id>
	<title>Too bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad they still haven't fixed the out of sync issues with the mini display port to dual link dvi adapters.  You STILL can't have a reliable connection with your macbook and a 30" monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they still have n't fixed the out of sync issues with the mini display port to dual link dvi adapters .
You STILL ca n't have a reliable connection with your macbook and a 30 " monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they still haven't fixed the out of sync issues with the mini display port to dual link dvi adapters.
You STILL can't have a reliable connection with your macbook and a 30" monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30050036</id>
	<title>Not only that ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but Apple will sue anybody that actually implements the standard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but Apple will sue anybody that actually implements the standard ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but Apple will sue anybody that actually implements the standard ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30051568</id>
	<title>HDMI doesn't work</title>
	<author>awtbfb</author>
	<datestamp>1257848220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all in favor of something that does the job better than HDMI.
If you need closed captioning in the US, HDMI doesn't work for you. <a href="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-699933.html" title="avsforum.com">It omits the</a> [avsforum.com] <a href="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=846346" title="avsforum.com">necessary data</a> [avsforum.com] <a href="http://webaim.org/teitac/mailarchives/mail\_message.php?id=2834&amp;listid=" title="webaim.org">from the video source.</a> [webaim.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all in favor of something that does the job better than HDMI .
If you need closed captioning in the US , HDMI does n't work for you .
It omits the [ avsforum.com ] necessary data [ avsforum.com ] from the video source .
[ webaim.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all in favor of something that does the job better than HDMI.
If you need closed captioning in the US, HDMI doesn't work for you.
It omits the [avsforum.com] necessary data [avsforum.com] from the video source.
[webaim.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, HDMI's signaling is basically a single DVI link, and isn't rated to push anything past 1920x1200. Pretty much anything higher requires a dual-link DVI connection, which involves more complex cabling and signal routing on the board.</p><p>DisplayPort is a much smaller connector and has an overall smaller PCB footprint, as well as using a thinner cable. I suspect that if Intel doesn't manage to run it by the wayside in a year's time with Lights Peak, you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , HDMI 's signaling is basically a single DVI link , and is n't rated to push anything past 1920x1200 .
Pretty much anything higher requires a dual-link DVI connection , which involves more complex cabling and signal routing on the board.DisplayPort is a much smaller connector and has an overall smaller PCB footprint , as well as using a thinner cable .
I suspect that if Intel does n't manage to run it by the wayside in a year 's time with Lights Peak , you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, HDMI's signaling is basically a single DVI link, and isn't rated to push anything past 1920x1200.
Pretty much anything higher requires a dual-link DVI connection, which involves more complex cabling and signal routing on the board.DisplayPort is a much smaller connector and has an overall smaller PCB footprint, as well as using a thinner cable.
I suspect that if Intel doesn't manage to run it by the wayside in a year's time with Lights Peak, you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048192</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the linux trolls.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm just waiting for some clever egg from that camp to speak out about "proprietary, non-standard lock-in" now.</p><p>[VESA]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.oO( *sigh* RMS-puppets... )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm just waiting for some clever egg from that camp to speak out about " proprietary , non-standard lock-in " now .
[ VESA ] .oO ( * sigh * RMS-puppets... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm just waiting for some clever egg from that camp to speak out about "proprietary, non-standard lock-in" now.
[VESA] .oO( *sigh* RMS-puppets... )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048524</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1257879360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't),</i></p><p>Display port does support audio. I don't know if its actually implemented anywhere though. Are you sure mini-DP doesn't?</p><p><i>Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI doesn't?</i></p><p>At the electrical level they work quite differently and displayport is much more better suited for certain tasks like embedded applications, laptop screens, etc. Its like SATA vs PATA in some respects with displayport being SATA. It can use fewer wires.</p><p>Displayport is also license free, while HDMI requires a license. That, of course, makes displayport a bit cheaper.</p><p>Overall displayport is the superior technology in nearly every respect. But HDMI was out first and is the more established one. If displayport had been out of the gate first, hdmi wouldn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it supports audio over the connection ( Mini-DP does n't ) ,Display port does support audio .
I do n't know if its actually implemented anywhere though .
Are you sure mini-DP does n't ? Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI does n't ? At the electrical level they work quite differently and displayport is much more better suited for certain tasks like embedded applications , laptop screens , etc .
Its like SATA vs PATA in some respects with displayport being SATA .
It can use fewer wires.Displayport is also license free , while HDMI requires a license .
That , of course , makes displayport a bit cheaper.Overall displayport is the superior technology in nearly every respect .
But HDMI was out first and is the more established one .
If displayport had been out of the gate first , hdmi would n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't),Display port does support audio.
I don't know if its actually implemented anywhere though.
Are you sure mini-DP doesn't?Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI doesn't?At the electrical level they work quite differently and displayport is much more better suited for certain tasks like embedded applications, laptop screens, etc.
Its like SATA vs PATA in some respects with displayport being SATA.
It can use fewer wires.Displayport is also license free, while HDMI requires a license.
That, of course, makes displayport a bit cheaper.Overall displayport is the superior technology in nearly every respect.
But HDMI was out first and is the more established one.
If displayport had been out of the gate first, hdmi wouldn't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048228</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other than being yet-another-cable to buy (and self satisfaction of being better-'cause-it's-apple), no. There's probably some licensing that apple didn't wanna be part of.</p><p>And to quote Jobs: `wires are stupid'.</p><p>And this plug *is* stupid. Many folks who want a video plug on their *laptop* want to connect it to projectors, to give presentations, etc.; a regular VGA (dual with DVI?) would've been a lot more useful in that regard. By making it anything else, they're forcing apple folks to carry an adapter---and to look stupid in front of an audience when they fumble with their macbook and projector for 10 minutes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than being yet-another-cable to buy ( and self satisfaction of being better-'cause-it 's-apple ) , no .
There 's probably some licensing that apple did n't wan na be part of.And to quote Jobs : ` wires are stupid'.And this plug * is * stupid .
Many folks who want a video plug on their * laptop * want to connect it to projectors , to give presentations , etc .
; a regular VGA ( dual with DVI ?
) would 've been a lot more useful in that regard .
By making it anything else , they 're forcing apple folks to carry an adapter---and to look stupid in front of an audience when they fumble with their macbook and projector for 10 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than being yet-another-cable to buy (and self satisfaction of being better-'cause-it's-apple), no.
There's probably some licensing that apple didn't wanna be part of.And to quote Jobs: `wires are stupid'.And this plug *is* stupid.
Many folks who want a video plug on their *laptop* want to connect it to projectors, to give presentations, etc.
; a regular VGA (dual with DVI?
) would've been a lot more useful in that regard.
By making it anything else, they're forcing apple folks to carry an adapter---and to look stupid in front of an audience when they fumble with their macbook and projector for 10 minutes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048464</id>
	<title>Because that might work with projectors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector. If Mac laptops had standardized display connectors, their presentations would just be untinted, and no one would know they'd paid extra for their computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac users want that distinctive green , blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector .
If Mac laptops had standardized display connectors , their presentations would just be untinted , and no one would know they 'd paid extra for their computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector.
If Mac laptops had standardized display connectors, their presentations would just be untinted, and no one would know they'd paid extra for their computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1257879780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream. Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires. But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires. Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels. There can be 1, 2 or 4 digital lanes, similar to how PCI express works, more lanes = more bandwidth. The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps (3 meter cable limit)and there is also a 1mbps aux channel. A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal. Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.</p><p>The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on. Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector. Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream .
Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires .
But display port is a packet based system so audo , video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires .
Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels .
There can be 1 , 2 or 4 digital lanes , similar to how PCI express works , more lanes = more bandwidth .
The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps ( 3 meter cable limit ) and there is also a 1mbps aux channel .
A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal .
Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on .
Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector .
Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream.
Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires.
But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires.
Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels.
There can be 1, 2 or 4 digital lanes, similar to how PCI express works, more lanes = more bandwidth.
The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps (3 meter cable limit)and there is also a 1mbps aux channel.
A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal.
Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on.
Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector.
Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048264</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257878520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Multi-channel support. With DisplayPort, you can daisy-chain multiple displays on the one bus. It can also be used to transmit data signals of various types (which HDMI can do, but in a much more limited fashion). And the DisplayPort connectors are much better than the HDMI ones. It's just a thoroughly more modern standard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Multi-channel support .
With DisplayPort , you can daisy-chain multiple displays on the one bus .
It can also be used to transmit data signals of various types ( which HDMI can do , but in a much more limited fashion ) .
And the DisplayPort connectors are much better than the HDMI ones .
It 's just a thoroughly more modern standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multi-channel support.
With DisplayPort, you can daisy-chain multiple displays on the one bus.
It can also be used to transmit data signals of various types (which HDMI can do, but in a much more limited fashion).
And the DisplayPort connectors are much better than the HDMI ones.
It's just a thoroughly more modern standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30052752</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it catches on</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257852960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then don't use the screws. Some of us like having a more secure connection.</p><p>All of this nonsense whining "just get a converter" ignores the simple fact that DVI was already a "modern" connector that can support an "archaic" VGA monitor with some sort of simple adaptor. Besides pandering to the fad-fixated, this new connector doesn't really deliver any real benefit to the vast majority of people that will be inconvenienced by the transition.</p><p>A well made monitor can last for several generations of PC. Excessive churn in the connectors is *ssinine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then do n't use the screws .
Some of us like having a more secure connection.All of this nonsense whining " just get a converter " ignores the simple fact that DVI was already a " modern " connector that can support an " archaic " VGA monitor with some sort of simple adaptor .
Besides pandering to the fad-fixated , this new connector does n't really deliver any real benefit to the vast majority of people that will be inconvenienced by the transition.A well made monitor can last for several generations of PC .
Excessive churn in the connectors is * ssinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then don't use the screws.
Some of us like having a more secure connection.All of this nonsense whining "just get a converter" ignores the simple fact that DVI was already a "modern" connector that can support an "archaic" VGA monitor with some sort of simple adaptor.
Besides pandering to the fad-fixated, this new connector doesn't really deliver any real benefit to the vast majority of people that will be inconvenienced by the transition.A well made monitor can last for several generations of PC.
Excessive churn in the connectors is *ssinine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048328</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>washu\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1257878700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HDMI 1.3 does support up to double the bandwidth of single link DVI, so it's basically equivalent to dual-link DVI.  I don't know if anything supports it.
<br> <br>
There is also a dual-link version of HDMI with a different connector.  With the double bandwith it is basically equivalent to quad-DVI.  Again, nothing really uses it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI 1.3 does support up to double the bandwidth of single link DVI , so it 's basically equivalent to dual-link DVI .
I do n't know if anything supports it .
There is also a dual-link version of HDMI with a different connector .
With the double bandwith it is basically equivalent to quad-DVI .
Again , nothing really uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI 1.3 does support up to double the bandwidth of single link DVI, so it's basically equivalent to dual-link DVI.
I don't know if anything supports it.
There is also a dual-link version of HDMI with a different connector.
With the double bandwith it is basically equivalent to quad-DVI.
Again, nothing really uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049042</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DisplayPort has stronger signal encryption than HDMI's HDCP.  That's mainly the reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DisplayPort has stronger signal encryption than HDMI 's HDCP .
That 's mainly the reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DisplayPort has stronger signal encryption than HDMI's HDCP.
That's mainly the reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30052868</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI?</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1257853620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's not magic, but it is USB - the Apple 24" display is actually a USB audio device as well with a 2.1 sound system in it (yes, 2 stereo speakers and a separate "sub")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's not magic , but it is USB - the Apple 24 " display is actually a USB audio device as well with a 2.1 sound system in it ( yes , 2 stereo speakers and a separate " sub " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's not magic, but it is USB - the Apple 24" display is actually a USB audio device as well with a 2.1 sound system in it (yes, 2 stereo speakers and a separate "sub")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960</id>
	<title>HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to HDMI? Lots of monitors and computers already have it, it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't), and it can support the resolutions the article mentions. There's even already a mini version of it in use. It's a standard in home video and had plenty of adoption with computers. Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI doesn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to HDMI ?
Lots of monitors and computers already have it , it supports audio over the connection ( Mini-DP does n't ) , and it can support the resolutions the article mentions .
There 's even already a mini version of it in use .
It 's a standard in home video and had plenty of adoption with computers .
Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to HDMI?
Lots of monitors and computers already have it, it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't), and it can support the resolutions the article mentions.
There's even already a mini version of it in use.
It's a standard in home video and had plenty of adoption with computers.
Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI doesn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30051124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30064938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30065154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30122862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30052868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30055368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30052752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30051568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_176220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_176220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30050788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_176220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30052752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_176220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_176220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_176220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_176220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30047960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30065154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30064938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30054056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30052868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30053138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30051568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30051124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30122862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30055368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30048252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_176220.30049064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
