this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
348 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
59295 readers
5014 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are people connecting their laptops to TVs frequently enough that this should be built into every single unit shipped? I can't imagine the percentage of users who actually use their HDMI ports is very high.
Yes? Someone in my group connects to our work TV pretty much every day for our morning meeting, and I connect to a monitor at home and at work multiple times every day. Yeah, I guess you could ensure that every TV supports streaming and have a USB-C hub at every desk, but that sounds odd compared to just adding an HDMI port or something.
You use HDMI for all those use cases? Seems like Thunderbolt is a much better dock for workstations, and DisplayPort is generally better for computer monitors and the resolution/refresh rates useful for that kind of work. The broad support of cables and HDMI displays is for HDMI 2.0, which caps at 4k60. By the time HDMI 2.1 hit the market, Thunderbolt and DisplayPort Alt mode had been out for a few years, so it would've made more sense to just upgrade to Thunderbolt rather than getting an all new HDMI lineup.
Yep!
Thunderbolt only works for workstations if the monitor supports it, and none of my monitors at home do. My gaming PC doesn't have USB-C out on the GPU, so even if my monitors supported it, I couldn't use it. I do use DisplayPort for my gaming PC, but the monitor for my home office doesn't have it.
I do have Thunderbolt at work, but it's super finicky (sometimes have to unplug/replug a few times for it to register) and I'd honestly rather just use HDMI because it pretty much always works for me.
DisplayPort is only better than HDMI if your monitor sends more data than HDMI can support, and HDMI can support all resolutions and refresh rates that I use (basically, the only thing it doesn't support are high res ultra-wide screens, or high res high refresh screens). I don't need high refresh for my work computer (I just use 1080p/60; I'm just dealing w/ text), so I'm well within that range. At work, I use a high res ultra-wide, which is nice I guess, and I use Thunderbolt there. My coworkers, however, use HDMI w/ a dongle just fine on similar screens (the ones that don't support Thunderbolt).
Yeah, I'm not going to throw out perfectly good hardware just to unify cables somewhat.
Adding an HDMI port really isn't a big deal. Apple did that with the M-series chips after having USB-C only on the previous gen, so HDMI isn't obsolete in any way. I only ever use 2 USB-C at a time anyway, and I'd honestly rather have a USB-A and HDMI on the other side than more USB-C ports. Variety > quantity IMO.
I was referring to the replacement of HDMI 2.0 stuff with 2.1 stuff - not seeing an advantage to choosing HDMI 2.1 over Thunderbolt. And then there's the support hell of intermingled HDMI 2.0 and 2.1 stuff, including cables and ports and dongles and adapters.
Either way, I'm still stuck on the idea of direct HDMI use as being so ubiquitous that it warrants being built into a non-gaming laptop that already has Thunderbolt and DP (and USB-PD) support through the preexisting USB-C ports.
Even if driving multiple monitors over HDMI or DVI or DP or VGA or whatever, the dock that actually connects directly to the laptop is best served with Thunderbolt over USB-C, since we'd expect the monitors and docking station (and power cords and an external keyboard/mouse and maybe even ethernet) to all remain stationary. That particular link in the chain is better served as a single Thunderbolt connection, rather than hooking up multiple cables representing display signal data, other signal data, and power. And this tech is older than HDMI 2.1!
So I'm not seeing that type of HDMI use as a significant percentage of users, enough to justify including on literally every 14" or 16" Macbook Pro with their integrated GPUs. At least not in workplaces.
It's perhaps more important for non-gaming laptops, because if you're buying a gaming laptop, you're probably also buying a higher-end monitor (so USB-C/Thunderbolt). For a regular laptop, having HDMI means you can connect to a TV and play a video, share a screen, etc. You're more likely to do that with a more portable laptop than a bulky gaming laptop.
The alternative is needing to bring a dongle everywhere. On a non-gaming laptop, I only really need like three ports: USB-A for older stuff, USB-C for dock and power, and HDMI for TVs and monitors. An extra USB-A would be nice, but hardly necessary (I'd prefer an ethernet port, but I think that ship has sailed).
Here are the things I use most frequently:
So outside of charging and plugging into the dock at my desk, I have zero use for USB-C. So I only need one USB-C, because the only time I use it is when I can just use a dock at my desk. I have never used more than 2 USB-C ports at a single time (and that only happens at work, when I'm rechanging the laptop while plugging into the USB-C monitor), and that's only because my work monitor doesn't provide enough power to charge my laptop.
Obviously you can't use an HDMI port that you don't have, but I gotta ask: if you had one of the newer MBPs with built-in HDMI, would you be using that HDMI port? Because it sounds like you wouldn't, and that you'd still rely on the USB-C dock to do everything.
And that's been my position this whole thread. I think that the MBP's return of the HDMI port was greeted with lots of fanfare, but I don't actually know anyone who switched back to HDMI.
Yes, absolutely. At work, we use MBPs, and I often ask someone with the port to connect to the TV so I don't have to go find a dongle (and those dongles can be very finicky). I've had to work around the lack of an HDMI port, and it's been incredibly annoying for the almost 4-years I've had my MBP.
My personal laptop has an HDMI port, and I also use it frequently to connect to our TV. It's something I'd use weekly, if not more frequently. This laptop is older, yet I still prefer using it to the MBP, largely because of the HDMI port.
Ok, thanks for talking me through this. I have completely unused HDMI ports on my laptops and I'm genuinely curious about those who are using theirs.
I honestly only got a USB-C hub because the laptop didn't have an HDMI port, so if we count the USB-C hub, the HDMI port is the most used port on both my work and home laptops. If we ignore the USB-C hub, it's second only to the USB-A port, which my kids use for a mouse to play Minecraft (I rarely use it personally).
Definitely.
People who never connect their laptop to a second screen are in the minority.
I never encountered one that has never done so, including Mac users.
To a second screen, sure. But I'm saying that DisplayPort and Thunderbolt are so much better, are generally supported by more computer monitors (but probably fewer TVs). I'd be surprised that there are a lot of people using HDMI in particular.