Mac Mini: Why the different video ports?

[SnowX]

Just wondering why the Mini DVI Port and Mini DisplayPort? Why not make them both the same? I'm sure there's a technical reason, but I'd like to know.

Thanks!

 

[Cave Man]

DVI is legacy and does not carry audio.

MDP is newer and has the ability to transmit HD audio (if Apple has implemented it).

 

[minik]

I feel like that the Mac mini is marketed as BYODKM and/or Windows switchers. They may not have displayport built-in displays.

 

[neiltc13]

Apple makes big profit on the adapters to convert the video ports on the back of your Mac mini into something more usable.

 

[illegallydead]

I feel like that the Mac mini is marketed as BYODKM and/or Windows switchers. They may not have displayport built-in displays.

They don't have Mini-DVI built in either. Both ways, they will NEED an adapter, unless they get the 24" LED ACD (or presumably any future ACD with Mini-DP built in)

Apple makes big profit on the adapters to convert the video ports on the back of your Mac mini into something more usable.

Exactly.
But that is what is bugging me. Why would APPLE include a port that people might already have an adapter for? That would mean that people could use something they already own. That doesn't sound like Apple to me .

Perhaps the video card is incapable of running full resolution on what would be 2 mini-displayports? (i.e. it could not run two 30" ACD's) Perhaps that is a reason to use Mini-DVI, so that people don't try to run two huge monitors (since Mini-DVI cannot power anything above 1900x1200 or so...)
That is the only thing that makes remote sense to me, unless anyone else can shed some light on this?

 

[minik]

They don't have Mini-DVI built in either. Both ways, they will NEED an adapter, unless they get the 24" LED ACD (or presumably any future ACD with Mini-DP built in)



Exactly.
But that is what is bugging me. Why would APPLE include a port that people might already have an adapter for? That would mean that people could use something they already own. That doesn't sound like Apple to me .

Perhaps the video card is incapable of running full resolution on what would be 2 mini-displayports? (i.e. it could not run two 30" ACD's) Perhaps that is a reason to use Mini-DVI, so that people don't try to run two huge monitors (since Mini-DVI cannot power anything above 1900x1200 or so...)
That is the only thing that makes remote sense to me, unless anyone else can shed some light on this?

But but..

In the box

Mac mini
Mini-DVI to DVI Adapter
110W power adapter and power cord
Install/restore DVDs
Printed and electronic documentation

 

[Cave Man]

Apple makes big profit on the adapters to convert the video ports on the back of your Mac mini into something more usable.

Or you could just buy third party cables, like most of us do. My DVI to HDMI cable was $8.

They don't have Mini-DVI built in either. Both ways, they will NEED an adapter, unless they get the 24" LED ACD (or presumably any future ACD with Mini-DP built in)

An adapter is in the box. There are also third-party options.

Exactly.
But that is what is bugging me. Why would APPLE include a port that people might already have an adapter for? That would mean that people could use something they already own. That doesn't sound like Apple to me .

Again, it's in the box.

Perhaps the video card is incapable of running full resolution on what would be 2 mini-displayports? (i.e. it could not run two 30" ACD's) Perhaps that is a reason to use Mini-DVI, so that people don't try to run two huge monitors (since Mini-DVI cannot power anything above 1900x1200 or so...)

With the dual-link adapter it will drive a 30" display.

 

[illegallydead]

An adapter is in the box. There are also third-party options.

Again, it's in the box.

With the dual-link adapter it will drive a 30" display.

The Mini-DVI wont. Mini-DP will.

And I stand corrected on the making people buy it thing, but still, I am surprised that they aren't forcing people to go 100% Mini-DP, more or less because they can...