HDMI to mdp need new driver?

[anotherpaul]

I got a Monoprice 27" monitor & am quite happy with the resolution on my win7 computer system. Also bought a mdp to dp for my 2011 MacMini to get the 2560x1440 resolution on the Mini as well.

Problem is that it looks like the MacMini is trying to load display drivers(?) or something as the screen shows the Apple logo & a circular busy indicator; then the monitor turns off as it no longer get a signal.

I was able to do the ctrl+v to get some info but that also stop sending video signals after the last line; the ctrl-s (apple equivalent) allows me to get onto the system but haven't been able to find the X11 (?) config or whatever Lion uses.

I thought I just needed to swap cables & "good to go".

Any ideas on drivers and/or help?

 

[brand]

You titled the thread asking about a HDMI to MDP adapter then say you bought a MDP to DP adapter and never mentioned HDMI in the body of your post. Which is it?

The HDMI on Apple computers will only do 1900 x 1080 resolution, even with a MDP adapter. All drivers needed are included in Mac OS X so drivers is not your problem.

 

[anotherpaul]

changing from a hdmi cable to using a mdp-dp cable for monitor need new driver?

You titled the thread asking about a HDMI to MDP adapter then say you bought a MDP to DP adapter and never mentioned HDMI in the body of your post. Which is it?

The HDMI on Apple computers will only do 1900 x 1080 resolution, even with a MDP adapter. All drivers needed are included in Mac OS X so drivers is not your problem.

I should have done a much longer title. I wasn't referring using a hdmi to mdp adaptor; it was disconnecting the hdmi cable & use a mdp to dp cable for connecting the MacMini to the monitor.

If it isn't a driver problem with the mdp-dp cable, then something is wrong as stated, it looks like the OS is trying to find or load something with the busy icon & then give up on sending a signal.

I got the Mac OS X Lion Bible when I bought the MacMini & tried out the ctrl-s which worked on the monitor with the mdp-dp cable in "unix" mode but don't know what the resolution is. So, the cable is good & the dp port on the monitor is also OK; it does appear the OS isn't right somehow & if the drivers are there, where is it?

Can I startup the Lion from the "basic" mode doing something like a "startx" on older linux implementations.

 

[anotherpaul]

it is thunderbolt problem!

Looking the displayed output under +v, until it died, there were too many lines about the ethernet port got swapped; most likely the tbolt app thinks that the display is supposed to be the gigabit ethernet adaptor....

Same problem looking at the logs available in the system info: the thunderbolt port thinks it is connected to an ethernet adapter with the ethernet port got changed!

I'm connected via wireless to the router; & the display does work with the mdp-dp cable as shown by the apple logo & the spinning ball of death. Also booted to use the usb lion recovery disk & the display showed the selection of the hd & recovery "disk"; of course, selecting the recovery disk still killed sending the display signals as tbolt still thought that it should be an ethernet connection........

 

[John Kotches]

Does the 2011 mini support WQHD (2560x1440)?

 

[anotherpaul]

Does the 2011 mini support WQHD (2560x1440)?

YES. I'm now connecting using the mini-displayport & getting "2347x1320" as calculated by several websites that calculate screen resolutions.

History: I updated to Mountain Lion today & updated the Thunderbolt port drivers to 1.2; perhaps Tbolt update did the trick BUT I found that the Logitech control was still installed when I was using their wireless mouse & keyboard. As both the OSX update & uninstall of the Logitech occur at about the same time, it could be that the Logitech was interfering but don't see how as it is usb.

The resolution under hdmi was calculated as 1760x990 instead of the 1920x1080 display setting; now using the mdp port, the calculated resolution is 2347x1320. OSX 10.8.4 don't show any selectable res but just say "best for the display"; looks to be a cop out by Apple to sucker the users.

Don't know why the slightly lower calculated resolutions & will need to check on the win7 machine to see if 2560x1440 gets calculated. Could be the 27" monitor I got from Monoprice or the discrepancy is "normal" for 27" displays.....

Tiny text but sharp!

 

[brand]

The resolution under hdmi was calculated as 1760x990 instead of the 1920x1080 display setting; now using the mdp port, the calculated resolution is 2347x1320. OSX 10.8.4 don't show any selectable res but just say "best for the display"; looks to be a cop out by Apple to sucker the users.

Copout of what?

Sucker the users into what?

 

[anotherpaul]

Copout of what?

Sucker the users into what?

Thinking that whatever apple claims is true. Also it doesn't allow to user to change/downscale the resolution so that the user can see a larger text.

It is like the 7 point system fonts that apple doesn't let anyone change the font size to be seen more easily; a know problem with users at least since 2004 & have seen postings back to 1998 about the tiny font sizes.

Got to do it the apple way or not at all as the "best" resolution is also a way to keep the user in the dark about what they are getting for their money. The "best resolution" also allows apple to have a lower resolution instead of what the monitor can produce.

Developers can have a "one size fits all" graphics for monitors as it makes things much easier & have users buy overpriced high resolution monitors without getting to use the high resolution capabilities.

 

[Omnius]

I can change the resolutions on all of my monitors connected to 2011 minis and none of them are running below the max the monitors can produce.

 

[anotherpaul]

I can change the resolutions on all of my monitors connected to 2011 minis and none of them are running below the max the monitors can produce.

So could I, when I was running 10.7.5 lion, but with 10.8.4 mountain lion, I cannot as the display only shows "best for your system"; no listing of what is available, not even the max resolution or the numbers associated with the "best for my display".

Unless apple moved the resolution change elsewhere?

edit: found that there were 2 check circles: 1) best for display & 2) scaled. selecting "scaled" has various resolutions for use. My error regarding the resolutions; now can lower the rez so can see some text with my glasses; a waste of a hi rez display on a Mac

 

[brand]

Got to do it the apple way or not at all as the "best" resolution is also a way to keep the user in the dark about what they are getting for their money. The "best resolution" also allows apple to have a lower resolution instead of what the monitor can produce.

found that there were 2 check circles: 1) best for display

Best for the display is the native resolution of the display. Since the native resolution of a display is the best resolution to use I am not sure what you think Apple is trying to keep the user in the dark about. Additionally this is well documented so the dark is only for those that choose to be there.

2) scaled. selecting "scaled" has various resolutions for use.

Scaled are resolutions other than the native resolution and are not the best resolution since they are scaled.

now can lower the rez so can see some text with my glasses; a waste of a hi rez display on a Mac

Using any resolution other than the native resolution has the same effect on any operating system and is not specific to Mac OS X. It sounds like you have an axe to grind with Apple or that you think they are out to get you.

 

[Omnius]

As i recall text in windows is softer whereas it is sharper in OSX this results in some folks saying its easier to read in windows because it may appear jagged in its natural state as displayed by OSX.

 

[philipma1957]

You titled the thread asking about a HDMI to MDP adapter then say you bought a MDP to DP adapter and never mentioned HDMI in the body of your post. Which is it?

The HDMI on Apple computers will only do 1900 x 1080 resolution, even with a MDP adapter. All drivers needed are included in Mac OS X so drivers is not your problem.

not true the hdmi on apple computers will do at least 1920 by 1200 as a max with hdmi, see screen shots.

I have a hdmi to dvi adpater.

I run the mini with an external t-bolt lacie for osx.

My point is we are all only human and can be incorrect as both you and the op were in this case.

BTW here is one of my better examples of being incorrect.

My quote on the new iPad back in the day was " looks like an in- betweener product no one will want it" yeah millions on iPads later so how incorrect was I that time (very)

 

[brand]

HDMI to mdp need new driver?

That is not the native resolution but a scaled resolution. I did have a typo so guess I was incorrect in that it should have been 1920x1080.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Also bought a mdp to dp for my 2011 MacMini to get the 2560x1440 resolution on the Mini as well.

Problem is that it looks like the MacMini is trying to load display drivers(?) or something as the screen shows the Apple logo & a circular busy indicator; then the monitor turns off as it no longer get a signal.

Is it the Monoprice mDP->DP cable? I had no luck with that cable at all - not the same issue you're seeing, but a terrible jittery display (both from my Mac Mini and iMac). I replaced the cable with this one from Accell and it worked perfectly.

 

[Fishrrman]

"I updated to Mountain Lion today & updated the Thunderbolt port drivers to 1.2"

How does one update the Thunderbolt port drivers to 1.2?

 

[anotherpaul]

"I updated to Mountain Lion today & updated the Thunderbolt port drivers to 1.2"

How does one update the Thunderbolt port drivers to 1.2?

Don't remember but think that I think I did the "software update" which popped up the apple store & listed the tbolt 1.2; else I was in apple store & used the "update"(?) category.

No problems of jittery screen with my Monoprice mdp->dp cable.

 

[anotherpaul]

Best for the display is the native resolution of the display. Since the native resolution of a display is the best resolution to use I am not sure what you think Apple is trying to keep the user in the dark about. Additionally this is well documented so the dark is only for those that choose to be there.

Scaled are resolutions other than the native resolution and are not the best resolution since they are scaled.

Using any resolution other than the native resolution has the same effect on any operating system and is not specific to Mac OS X. It sounds like you have an axe to grind with Apple or that you think they are out to get you.

Best for the display is a limited description as it is "best" for the display but not best display for one's eyesight. Then some would say the "best" isn't really best as one can overclock & have a monitor run at 70 or 75 hz for a better than "best" display for a monitor that can do it.

The windows allows the user to change the size of the system fonts to what ever size is visually preferred & can have different sizes for different "boxes" as in the menu, menu box, title, selection, tips, icons & allows the adjustment of the width of the scroll bars. ALL LEAVING the resolution as NATIVE.

Some people can just change the screen dpi which is about the same as changing the resolution to other than native.

Ax to grind on Apple? Regarding the imposed tiny system fonts, YES. Apple claims how "advanced" the Mac OS is even if it isn't. Intuitive? not any more than any other OS in what some users want; nothing unique as the questions that are on various forums also indicate.

Evidently you haven't looked at the thread system fonts sizing on MacRumors or just ignored it as a figment of people's imagination.

 

[Omnius]

Best for the display is a limited description as it is "best" for the display but not best display for one's eyesight. Then some would say the "best" isn't really best as one can overclock & have a monitor run at 70 or 75 hz for a better than "best" display for a monitor that can do it.

The windows allows the user to change the size of the system fonts to what ever size is visually preferred & can have different sizes for different "boxes" as in the menu, menu box, title, selection, tips, icons & allows the adjustment of the width of the scroll bars. ALL LEAVING the resolution as NATIVE.

Some people can just change the screen dpi which is about the same as changing the resolution to other than native.

Ax to grind on Apple? Regarding the imposed tiny system fonts, YES. Apple claims how "advanced" the Mac OS is even if it isn't. Intuitive? not any more than any other OS in what some users want; nothing unique as the questions that are on various forums also indicate.

Evidently you haven't looked at the thread system fonts sizing on MacRumors or just ignored it as a figment of people's imagination.

Let me get this right, your complaint is that the fonts in the OS can't be resized?

 

[anotherpaul]

Let me get this right, your complaint is that the fonts in the OS can't be resized?

???? The reference is to the SYSTEM FONTS that cannot be resized since at least 2008. Check the thread on the system fonts resizing & displays. It's on this MacRumors site.

For such an "advanced" & "friendly" OS, one cannot adjust the system fonts? I do adjust fonts within firefox with the exception of the menu/toolbar that is locked in to the system fonts.

Being able to adjust the system fonts & the dpi is quite important for people.

 

[Omnius]

???? The reference is to the SYSTEM FONTS that cannot be resized since at least 2008. Check the thread on the system fonts resizing & displays. It's on this MacRumors site.

For such an "advanced" & "friendly" OS, one cannot adjust the system fonts? I do adjust fonts within firefox with the exception of the menu/toolbar that is locked in to the system fonts.

Being able to adjust the system fonts & the dpi is quite important for people.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone fiddle with that in 20+ years of Mac and pc use.
Is it like an accommodation setting for folks with bad eye sight?

Edit: I was curious so I clicked on view menu in finder and went to show view options. I was able to change the size of system fonts. It literally took me two minutes to figure out how to make that happen.

 

[philipma1957]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone fiddle with that in 20+ years of Mac and pc use.
Is it like an accommodation setting for folks with bad eye sight?

Edit: I was curious so I clicked on view menu in finder and went to show view options. I was able to change the size of system fonts. It literally took me two minutes to figure out how to make that happen.

please show me how to make the the system fonts bigger use screen shots please.

i would like you to make the toolbar fonts bigger .

 

[Omnius]

The menu bar, that I'm not sure about. The fonts in windows can easily be raised as I have stated. That probably ought to be changeable if its not. I could see it being an issue for folks with a visual impairment.

Though I would hesitate to put a value on the importance of modifying the menu bar size as I'm not privy to sufficient data to make a call of that type.

 

[anotherpaul]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone fiddle with that in 20+ years of Mac and pc use.
Is it like an accommodation setting for folks with bad eye sight?

Edit: I was curious so I clicked on view menu in finder and went to show view options. I was able to change the size of system fonts. It literally took me two minutes to figure out how to make that happen.

see thread:
"https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/352057/"

the subject is "Increase System Font Size - How?"

Your "20+" years don't include the high resolution monitors available now. I haven't had problems until I got a 22" 1920x1080 monitor that was also being used for my MacMini; no problems with windows. Now with a 27" monitor with 2560x1440, the MacMini still have problems with the system fonts; still NO problem with win7 since I can control the dpi & font sizes.

The claims for tinkertool's ability to change the system font is totally untrue as no one has proven that; the product is only changing the fonts of the application for some fonts.

I've used the IBM's "tiger" terminal panels & that has small fonts for displaying 4 screens on the terminal & the font size is still larger than the OSX default system fonts.

The thread posted regarding how to increase the system font size appears to be started around 2007 on a Macrumors forum. AND if there is a problem with one's eyesight, a "intuitive & advanced & user friendly" OS should accommodate it rather being facist about it.

 

[Omnius]

see thread:
"https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/352057/"

the subject is "Increase System Font Size - How?"

Your "20+" years don't include the high resolution monitors available now. I haven't had problems until I got a 22" 1920x1080 monitor that was also being used for my MacMini; no problems with windows. Now with a 27" monitor with 2560x1440, the MacMini still have problems with the system fonts; still NO problem with win7 since I can control the dpi & font sizes.

The claims for tinkertool's ability to change the system font is totally untrue as no one has proven that; the product is only changing the fonts of the application for some fonts.

I've used the IBM's "tiger" terminal panels & that has small fonts for displaying 4 screens on the terminal & the font size is still larger than the OSX default system fonts.

The thread posted regarding how to increase the system font size appears to be started around 2007 on a Macrumors forum. AND if there is a problem with one's eyesight, a "intuitive & advanced & user friendly" OS should accommodate it rather being facist about it.

I'm not sure why you're so angry or sarcrastic about my post it but I've already provided instructions on how to increase font size for the desktop in the windows so as to help those interested in doing so.

Beyond that, all I've mentioned is that I've never seen anyone change the sizing of text size in any OS but that it seems like a reasonable accommodation for folks with vision difficulties.