The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

Wed Sep 1 22:17:33 UTC 2021

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:28 PM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:

>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it.

And everytime I see an email thread about the difference or not between
monitors and TVs I'm taken over by an all consuming rage...
I have a **monitor**.... I purchased it from Dell, and it clearly said
"monitor" on the box, it identifies itself somewhere display settings as a
"monitor", and even says "monitor" in small letters somewhere on the
back.... It's a MONITOR dagnabit... but, for some unfathomable reason it
has some tiny little speakers in it, and every time I connect it via HDMI
to my Mac laptop, the machine decides to completely ignore the fact that
I've told it that I want to use a specific sound output, and starts playing
all audio though the monitors speakers. Oh, and because this is HDMI, and
Apple apparently follows the HDMI spec, the Mac volume controls won't work
("This device has no audio level control" or something...) and I have to go
scrummaging around in some horrendous on-screen monitor menu to make it
less obnoxiously loud...

All attempts to get this less stupid result in Apple pointing at the HDMI
spec and saying that if a device advertises audio capabilites they list it
as an output device, and Dell pointing out that they simply advirtise the
fact that the device has a speaker, and, well, shrug, not thier issue if
things try and use it.

There used to be a good webpage that had some instructions along the lines
of:
Step 1:
Open /System/Library/Extensions/AMDRadeonX6000HWServices.kext/Contents/PlugIns/AMDRadeonX6300HWLibs.kext
in a hex editor
Step 2: Change the byte at offset 931 to 0xED, offset 12323 to 0xFD, offset
94 to 0x00 and offset 42 to 0x03.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: The HDMI capabilities parser no longer understands the audio
capability message, and so the Mac will never try to use HDMI audio ever
again.... well, until you upgrade... oh, this is perfectly safe, trust us,
nothing could possibly go wrong here...

Unfortunately this was only for a specific version of a specific kext on a
specific model of Macbook, but it did work...

All I want is to be able to reliably inform my computer that the thingie on
my desk is "just" a monitor and not a TV/HiFi system/similar... is that too
much to ask!?!!?!!?!??!! <sob>

(Actually, this used to annoy me enough that I purchased one of bunnie
Huang's NeTV (https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=17) devices, which
allows taking in HDMI, munging it and sending it out (e.g to do text
overlays). My plan was to repurpose it as a straight data passthrough, but
overriding the HDMI profile info, but as with most of these sorts of
projects I got sidetracked into playing with the build environment instead,
and now the hardware is buried under a pile of other abandoned projects
somewhere on my workbench)

Thank you all, I feel much better now...
W

> I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.
>
> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?
>
> Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.
>
> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog at nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG)
> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > > On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>  > >> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I
> ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K
> monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended
> up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p,
> but I digress).
>  > >
>  > > Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a
> "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39"
> model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size
> and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it).
> What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed
> to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors
> (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that
> 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too
> small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>  >
>  > Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are
> relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I
> think still within range.
>  >
>  > Owen
>  >
>
> --
>         -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>

-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210901/7770e41d/attachment.html>