Why Hasn't the DVI Interface Replaced D-Sub?

Simple by caperry · 2004-01-29 04:28 · Score: 5, Informative

6 foot cable length at resolutions over 1024x768. Not so much a problem on monitors, but the projector on my ceiling need a $700 DVI-fiber-DVI cable to go lengths over 6ft while still remaining in spec.

Most good Flat Panel displays (Hitachi, Sony, etc 17" and up) do support DVI - but DVI on Analog CRTs doesn't make much sense.

--
-Carl "No, we already thought of that one. 'Why?' '42' - It doesn't fit." -Hitchhiker'

Re:Simple by dFaust · 2004-01-29 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

You're right, DVIs on CRTs don't make much sense... but have you been to CompUSA or Best Buy lately?? Check out their monitor display, the vast majority of them are LCDs. CRTs are becoming increasingly difficult to find in retail, hence all the more reason you would think DVI connection would be becoming more abundant.
Part of the problem is that, in fact, many LCDs do NOT come with DVI connections. You say "most good flat panel displays" do, though that's not quite accurate. You mention Sony 17" and up... well, this 17" Sony doesn't use DVI, nor does this 19" Sony. Or how about this 24" Samsung, which includes connections for D-Sub, S-Video, RCA, Component (x2), Coax, and Scart (but no DVI) and will set you back $3-4k.
The fact is, contrary to popular belief, the majority of LCDs still do not come with DVI, whether budget or high-end. I learned this during Christmas when I had to shop for an LCD for my mother. Sadly, often times if you want a DVI connection, you pay MORE than the identical model which uses a D-Sub connection.
Which brings us back to the original post... WHY is this?? Doesn't DVI on a video card or LCD mean not having to use a DAC on the hardware? Which you would think would cut costs?? Not to mention DVI provides better quality to an LCD than D-Sub does... you would think monitor manufacturers, at least, would appreciate making their hardware seemingly perform better while saving money??
Hopefully someone will have some insightful knowledge to clue us in on the this seemingly backwards situation.
Re:Simple by Hes+Nikke · 2004-01-29 04:58 · Score: 1

you also pay more for a galon of bottled water than you do for gas. how meny people complain about that?

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:Simple by jjshoe · 2004-01-29 05:09 · Score: 2, Informative

We use 16' dvi cables in operating rooms without any issues.

--
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
Re:Simple by addaon · 2004-01-29 05:37 · Score: 1

This would be a good example, except (a) a lot of people complain about the cost of bottled water and (b) gas, around here, is about $1.50.... water is about $0.39, bottled. So, yeah, use the same kind of evocative metaphor, with less lies, and it'll make a good point.

--

I've had this sig for three days.
Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 06:07 · Score: 0

Part of the problem is that, in fact, many LCDs do NOT come with DVI connections. You say "most good flat panel displays" do, though that's not quite accurate.

An analog LCD is not a good LCD. An LCD without a DVI connector is an analog LCD. (With one exception, the SGI 1600SW.) Ergo, by definition, an LCD without DVI is not a good LCD.
Re:Simple by terpia · 2004-01-29 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

but the projector on my ceiling need a $700 DVI-fiber-DVI cable to go lengths over 6ft while still remaining in spec.

Wrong. You've been misled. DVI at half bandwidth can travel 30 feet on a good cable. (half bandwidth currently is how computer data and HDTV are transmitted via DVI) DVI at full bandwidth travels 15 feet. And a limit of 1024x768? Not true at all. I'm running two 30' DVI cables. One to a projector sending 720p (1280x720) and one to an LCD display @ 1280x1024.

DVIgear.com's salesmen are good aren't they? ;)

--
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
Re:Simple by PunchMonkey · 2004-01-29 06:28 · Score: 1

... Maybe it's just where you live.... here in Toronto, gas is ~.75 per litre and a litre of bottled water will run $1 to $2.

--
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
Re:Simple by Jukashi · 2004-01-29 06:57 · Score: 0

I wonder where they have 6 feet of wiring crammed inside my 1600x1200 laptop..
Re:Simple by Theosis · 2004-01-29 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative

but DVI on Analog CRTs doesn't make much sense.

I think it does. The DVI spec allows for analog signals. Check the pinouts for DVI connector. Apple only has DVI/ADC , and they include a VGA adapter for the ADC. I also own a DVI to VGA adapter and it works just fine.

DVI should replace VGA.

(ADC is an Apple only connector that is basically DVI with USB and power pins included).
Re:Simple by pbox · 2004-01-29 08:15 · Score: 1

Correct. My video card has dual DVI out, with two DVI to D-sub converters, which are just simple wirings between the two connectors, since the DVI outs have both digital and analog present.

--
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Re:Simple by Grotus · 2004-01-29 08:19 · Score: 1

It depends more on the water you are buying. If you buy the single serving bottles, sure, you might as well ingest them goatse-style. However, if you buy the big 5 gallon (19 liter) water-cooler bottles, then you will most likely be paying a lot less on a per-liter basis.

--
"From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
Re:Simple by damien_kane · 2004-01-29 08:30 · Score: 1

Sure, I live in toronto too... and a single bottle of water does run $1-$2, more if you're at a club (I've payed as much as $4.75).
The bottled water that your parent is talking about, however, is the bottled distilled water you buy at the supermarket.
I believe it comes in 10 or 20L bottles, and they're cheap... much cheapter than gasoline by volume.
Re:Simple by madcow_ucsb · 2004-01-29 12:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah my friend's running 1600x1200 over 18' so he can have his computer in the closet and his 20" LCD mounted on the wall above his desk.

Picture looks great (and a pretty cool setup too as long as you don't need to change CDs...)
Re:Simple by xanderwilson · 2004-01-29 14:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

People don't get rid of their monitors as fast as they get rid of other stuff. During a time period when I upgraded my computer almost every year, I stuck with the same CRT monitor I bought in college. Now it's seven years old and my computers last longer, but I still use the monitor. It's a 17" Dell CRT, bought refurbished in 1997 for somewhere between $150-250. Heck, I even switched to the Mac platform in 2001 and I'm still using the monitor.

It's the monitors that need backward compatibility. Unless I'm a hardcore gamer, I'm not going to buy a new monitor just so I can get the latest and greatest video card to work. Come to think of it, I used the same ATI graphics card through most of that time as well. It's in my current and last Windows machine, which I bought in early 2000 and have managed to keep booting up once a month or so. The ATI card I bought in 1998.

Alex.
Re:Simple by Bombcar · 2004-01-29 18:01 · Score: 1

The main reason I see is that DVI supports both analog and digital. So you could have a LCD with only digital in in a DVI connector, but people would expect it to work with their analog connector if the get the adapter. The adapter fits, but it doesn't work.

To solve that problem, you have to have both a digital and analog thingy in the monitor.

--
Fellowship 9/11
Re:Simple by tigersha · 2004-01-29 23:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I did that and I have my DVD drive in a USB 2.0 case and it works very, very nicely, thank you.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re:Simple by madcow_ucsb · 2004-02-02 11:53 · Score: 1

Well, that works, although high-speed USB has a max cable length of 5m. Not long enough in this case, and you're definitely taking a chance when using a non-compliant cableor a full-speed cable. HS USB 2.0 is pretty unforgiving when it comes to signal quality issues.
Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 08:27 · Score: 0

you also pay more for a galon of bottled water than you do for gas. how meny people complain about that?
Few, because it's a stupid comparison.
I can buy filtered water (provide my own container) at my grocery store for $.25/gal. Gas there is $1.47 (in my own container). While I don't know the exact prices, they sell bottled water and gas in a can. The gas is more expensive in a container as well.

Dell has not been totally NON-DVI by fruitbane · 2004-01-29 04:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dell, lately, has been shipping lots of FP monitors and video cards with DVI connectors. The caveat is that Dell has been using lots of weird monitor connectors for which we have to use odd dongles (and boy do we have some odd dongles cluttering up our desk drawers now, thank you Dell).

So I guess the question should be, why has DVI been so slow to penetrate the low-end/mainstream/low cost market? I imagine the DVI connector is a more complicated part and more expensive to produce, especially if you're like Dell and using weird connectors that require the extra expense of dongles. Additionally, if all you use is a DVI you have to include a VGA adapter, another item that slowly pecks away at the bottom line.

Let's face it, for most hardware manufacturers what's cheaper than simply using the old tried and true D-sub VGA connector?

Re:Dell has not been totally NON-DVI by Joseph+Vigneau · 2004-01-29 04:48 · Score: 3, Informative

I recently bought a pair of Dell 1800FP panels (one for work, one for home), because I needed the space, and my eyes needed the rest. I chose the 1800FP because it was relatively inexpensive, fairly large, and has DVI connector. I have a GeForce3 I bought two years ago that has DVI output. My picture is crystal clear; I have no complaints.

Manufacturers are catering to the lowest common denominator- the "good enough" theory in action. This is also why the market is being flooded with cheap 42" plasma displays, that only have 864x480 (ie, non-HDTV) resolution, often without DVI. Most people just want the sexy thin screen, but don't care or don't realize how low the resolution is, and what they're missing out on.

DVI isn't necessarily in the domain of high-end, but you have to look a little harder to get it.
Re:Dell has not been totally NON-DVI by MrResistor · 2004-01-29 07:18 · Score: 1

Most people just want the sexy thin screen, but don't care or don't realize how low the resolution is, and what they're missing out on.

Most people probably aren't missing out on anything. I recently bought a 42" HD monitor, but I don't have any HD video to watch on it. I mostly bought it because I mainly use my TV for watching movies and I prefer 16:9. I doubt I would notice much difference between 1920x1080 and 864x480 in my typical usage, except perhaps that my SD cable signal might not look quite as crappy (though I doubt it, the quality on my cable feed is pretty bad). I suspect many people feel pretty much the same way about it.

You're right, though, most people don't care about video quality that much. Remember back in the old days when a movie on VHS cost $60+ and everybody had a shelf full of tapes, each with 3 or even 4 movies on them? That and porn are why Beta failed.

And for the record, I test and repair some of the best video production equipment on the planet for a living, so I do know what I, they, and even the people who are actually recieving HD signal are missing. I fully admit that my jaw hit the floor when I first saw uncompressed 1080p, but it's not worth the extra $40/month plus $650 setup fee it would cost me to get it in my home (and that's for 1080i). Even if it were just an extra $20/month I doubt I would pay it, but I'd at least consider it.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Dell has not been totally NON-DVI by Bangback · 2004-01-29 16:57 · Score: 1

Plenty of knowledgable people are buying ED (enhanced definition = 864x480) rather than HD 42" plasmas. Mainly because they're $3000 rather than $4200 ($4800 when I bought mine). For cable/broadcast/DVD the picture is actually better on an ED plasma due to a closer match to the source resolution while achieving the aesthetic and widescreen advantages of plasma. For HD there is clearly some differences, but few people with HD TVs have decoders anyway (most only take advantage of progressive scan DVD). My cable company only gets 6 HD channels (no standard networks) so I don't have a huge demand for HD. But HBO HD looks fantastic in ED, regardless. In three years when more channels are available in HD and HD recording is common, I'll take the $1800 and pay for most of a 50" HD plasma. If you're buying a $3000 TV, you're probably pretty aware of what you're missing out on (which today isn't much).

It is difficult to convince most visitors that they are not looking at an HDTV (even on a analog cable signal).
Re:Dell has not been totally NON-DVI by LauraW · 2004-01-29 21:02 · Score: 1

Dell, lately, has been shipping lots of FP monitors and video cards with DVI connectors.
Definitely. I have two of their 20" LCD monitors on my desk at work. They're pretty nice displays: bright and crisp. I like the Samsung I have at home a little bit more because it has slightly better contrast, but the Dells are quite nice. The ones we have at work have 4 (!) inputs: DVI, D-Sub, S-video, and composite. It looks great with the DVI input but is a bit fuzzy if you use the D-Sub input, even at the same resolution.

HDMI by Who+Man · 2004-01-29 04:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Maybe they're skipping DVI, since it already has a replacment.

http://www.hdmi.com

Re:HDMI by Ianoo · 2004-01-29 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

From the HDMI FAQ:
Yes, HDMI is fully backward-compatible with DVI using the CEA-861 profile for DTVs. HDMI DTVs will display video received from existing DVI-equipped products, and DVI-equipped TVs will display video from HDMI sources.
It seems HDMI is more of a redefinition of the existing DVI standard to support consumer devices like televisions.

Analog good enough for now by Uma+Thurman · 2004-01-29 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Analog connectors and signals are good enough for now. I run an LCD in 1280x1024 resolution and it's fine, though I had to use a good quality cable. Once resolutions go higher, then the digital signals will become more important. The DVI connectors haven't failed, it's just that they haven't succeeded yet. They will. Right now, the cables cost more money too, and that's always a factor.

--
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!

Re:Analog good enough for now by fm6 · 2004-01-29 07:13 · Score: 1

Allegedly, DVI is faster. But I suppose analog is fast enough for most people.
Re:Analog good enough for now by zanson · 2004-01-29 10:29 · Score: 1

You don't get the point. DVI connectors have analog on them as well as digital. You can have a DVI cable that carries no digital signal, just the analog part. All the DVI->DSUB connectors that come with most vid cards now do is take the analog DVI pins and straight through them so they match up with the DSUB pin configuration... The digital part of DVI is just the small group of pins sitting in a square to the side of the connector. All those other pins on there are analog outputs.
Re:Analog good enough for now by silverfuck · 2004-01-29 11:39 · Score: 1

My graphics card only has dvi-output, and come with a converter to vga. Admittedly it did cost a bomb (ATI AIW Radeon 9800Pro, 350 (Pounds Sterling)). My monitor is fine with analogue input only - 17", 1600*1200@75Hz and with the sharpest focus I have ever seen on a monitor (except for a friend's 2700 workstation-grade laptop).

--
You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...

People are cheap by nelsonal · 2004-01-29 04:31 · Score: 1

They probably do not understand the benefits to switching, and DVI is only offered on higher end monitors. The average buyer differentiates LCD screens largely on size and is not interested in a 15" monitor that costs $50 less than this 17" one right next to it.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.

Re:People are cheap by u.hertlein · 2004-01-29 05:01 · Score: 1

The question remains why a DVI (only) LCD should be/is *more* expensive than one with analog only. I would imagine that DVI actually makes it easier since a) the video card doesn't need to do digital-to-analog conversion obsoleting RAMDACs and such and the LCD doesn't have to do analog-to-digital to drive the (I assume) digital LCD panel. I remember reading somewhere that some IBM flatpanels actually had to use blowers to cool the ADCs.

--
Geek by Nature - Linux by Choice.
Re:People are cheap by nelsonal · 2004-01-29 05:09 · Score: 1

I think that the expense comes not so much from the connector, but from a better screen. From what I've seen you cant get DVI on the low end stuff, but it is a common feature on more expensive screens. Would assume that since most screens that feature DVI connections continue to support analog connections that there is some additional cost. I've also never seen a motherboard with onboard video that supported DVI, although those might exist, and outside of the build it yourself world most people buying a computer these days are getting a cheap onboard video based system. Since flat panel makers don't want to cut out a large part of their potential market, which is very price sensitive and quality insensitive. Cheap LCD screens won't support DVI until onboard video does in signficant numbers.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.

People are conservative ... by daviddennis · 2004-01-29 04:32 · Score: 1

when it comes to continuing to use old hardware. I have an old Sony monitor that's just about good as new. It has a D-Sub connector.

Why would I want to throw out the monitor or buy an overpriced adaptor just so I could use some new-fangled connector?

D-Sub will continue until the last D-Sub-using monitor is junked. Because, after all, there is no real reason to junk it; the part's trivial in cost, and people are used to it. Getting rid of it is just one more reason for people to decide not to buy what you're selling.

(Of course this is already happening in laptops, which can only "afford" one connector for space reasons. My PowerBook G4 1ghz came with a DVI connector and a D-Sub adaptor).

D

Re:People are conservative ... by Endive4Ever · 2004-01-29 04:39 · Score: 1

Back in the 70's I used to want to firebomb 'Stereo Stores.' They were full of slick fascistic 'salesmen' who would sneer when I came in the store needing another goddamn connector off the pegboard display in the back. I knew more about what they were selling, but I wasn't a pimp-slime so they'd cop an attitude because I wasn't wearing a suit and didn't look like an ignorant beatnick-bearing 'intellectal' which made it obvious I wasn't going to buy their overpriced shit.

I've always since said 'fuck' to proprietary connectors that add nothing to the technology.

There was a big honking 'superior' video connector stuck on the back of Power Macs back in the late Nu-Bus era. Glad that one died and went away as well.

Harumph.

--
---
Re:People are conservative ... by Hes+Nikke · 2004-01-29 05:11 · Score: 1

There was a big honking 'superior' video connector stuck on the back of Power Macs back in the late Nu-Bus era. Glad that one died and went away as well.

and now we have ADC... DVI+power+USB.... oooohhh!!!!

happily, an ADC -> DVI adapter is only about $15 (even if DVI -> ADC adapters are hella expensive)

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:People are conservative ... by mabhatter654 · 2004-01-29 10:11 · Score: 1

Yes, but ADC is what we WANT! It's unique in that it uses standard DVI spec for analog and digital video + it has powered usb connections...allowing you to control the monitor directly from the computer, or to plug in keyboards, monitors, without ANOTHER plug running to your desk....
It's quick and simple to convert VGA or DVI to ADC...[the other way around is tough though due to apple using USB to control the monitors] There's no reason for everybody not to use the best and sell a $10 retail doggle to "dumb" it down...it's a chicken-egg-omlet problem.
Re:People are conservative ... by russotto · 2004-02-04 06:53 · Score: 1

The D-15 connector Apple had on the back of the Power Macs (and in fact every non-toaster since the Mac II) wasn't particularly superior. But the VGA form factor wasn't much of a standard when it was used. The 13W3 Sun used was superior, but that's another story.

I think its too soon to be crying out its dead by a.koepke · 2004-01-29 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

I remember when I used to work in a computer store around 1998->1999. We started getting systems with USB header pins on the board and support for it in the BIOS but no connectors and no devices. It is only in the last couple of years that USB has really taken off.

My video card has a DVI connector and standard D-Sub on it but my LG 19" inch has no DVI connection. I have yet to use it. Until the displays start featuring it on them its not much point having it on the computer. Also its not much point having displays that use DVI without having many systems supporting it. I would almost say that each one is waiting on the other :)

Also you need to look at the upgade cycle. Not everyone is a computer geek, not everyone has the latest graphics cards and computer gear. When new technology gets released it will take a while to penetrate and become common place.

--

(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread

Re:I think its too soon to be crying out its dead by pbox · 2004-01-29 08:34 · Score: 1

I agree. It is too early to tell if DVI is gonna make it.

Plus the reason for lack of DVI inputs on most models is simple (and quite strange that a Hungarian born has to tell this to the yankees).

They sell what you buy!

If all of us started to buy panels that have DVI connectors, the manufacturers would start curning out panels with DVI...

--
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Re:I think its too soon to be crying out its dead by mike_sucks · 2004-01-29 11:23 · Score: 1

And you know, you can thank Apple for that. The general modus operandi for the x86 industry is:

1) See what Apple does
2) Copy it
3) Profit!

The examples are endless: WIMP user interface, funky cases, USB for mouse and keyboard, firewire, no floppy drives, etc, etc, etc.

Thank god for that company. If it wasn't for them, we'd all still be using ISA cards, PS/2 connectors, and D-sub 15's.!

-mike (who's never owned an Apple in his life)

--
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
Re:I think its too soon to be crying out its dead by drinkypoo · 2004-01-29 13:23 · Score: 1

Everything but the PC has out-autoconfigured the Macintosh. Amiga comes to mind, but so does Sun (Openboot with Sbus, or for that matter Sun VME, anyone?) Apple did a good job with ADB, but basically no one bothered to copy it until USB came along because it was cheap and no one believed they could sell the average PC keyboard for fifty bucks. Apple is doing it now with USB though, and guess what? I'm typing on one right now, on my PC :) I really like it, as much as I like any of these qwerty keyboards designed for you small people. My hands make typing on one of these things a pretty ridiculous-looking exercise.
No floppy drives is even still not really happening, we order PCs every day with floppy drives, even when Gateway's goofy cases mean they need expensive laptop-form factor drives. I believe that you can blame a lot of that on the PC BIOS. It would probably be a lot better for everyone if we just moved away from that stuff entirely. I think it's most of the motivation for the legacy crap on PCs, which it would be better to simply do away with. But inertia is one of those laws, you know, and the PC bios is simply the way things are done. Too bad we could never get everyone to sign off on LinuxBIOS :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I think its too soon to be crying out its dead by pcmanjon · 2004-01-31 03:47 · Score: 1

And you know, you can thank Apple for that. The general modus operandi for the x86 industry is:

1) See what Apple does
2) Copy it
3) Profit!

The examples are endless: WIMP user interface, funky cases, USB for mouse and keyboard, firewire, no floppy drives, etc, etc, etc.

Thank god for that company. If it wasn't for them, we'd all still be using ISA cards, PS/2 connectors, and D-sub 15's.!

I still don't see the purpose of having 2 USB ports on your keyboard when I have them on the front of my case..... and that, is why I use ps/2

PC Connector Soup by bellings · 2004-01-29 04:39 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't think anyone knows why motherboards come with the connectors they come with.

Why can't I buy a motherboards without a serial port, a parallel port, two ps/2 ports, and a line-in audio port? Why do motherboards come with built in video, but not bluetooth and wireless networking?

Why isn't there a standard for external power supplies, instead of having a blasting-hot power supply inside the temperature sensitive case, while a half-dozen wall-warts hang off my power supply driving all my peripherals?

In short, why are PC compatibles such heaps of shit?

--
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.

Re:PC Connector Soup by Endive4Ever · 2004-01-29 04:43 · Score: 1

In short, why are PC compatibles such heaps of shit?

It's called 'open standards' and 'not every piece designed as one unified whole by a single vendor.'

Do you carp and whine that everybody should have one of those shit VCR/TV combos, too, because of the lack of dangling signal cords?

--
---
Re:PC Connector Soup by DarkDust · 2004-01-29 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

In short, why are PC compatibles such heaps of shit?

In short, because they still try to be compatible with a 20 year old machine that was a quick-shot and intended to be replaced by something better... but it wasn't replaced since the quick-shot gained too much market capacity.

The funny thing is that not only the IBM PC itself was just intended to be an interim solution but the processor (8086) was as well ! Intel wanted to do something better but felt it had to react to competition and thus released quickly made the 8086 just to have something.

And then people began to build even more and more stores onto this messy ground (PCI, AGP, ACPI, APIC, and the most famous: the A20 gate, just to name a few extensions) and now we have an architecture so horrible, complicated and full of unnecessary stuff that it's a real wonder that most PCs run quite well...

I've been saying this for years: it's time to start from scratch and cut that damn downward compability. But Windows only runs on Intel systems, that's a problem worth another discussion. If we'd start from scratch and throw the 20 year old dirt over board not only would computers be faster, they would also be cheaper and more reliable (because implementors wouldn't have to implement all those warts and bugs that some software now depends on).
Re:PC Connector Soup by Komarosu · 2004-01-29 04:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Why can't I buy a motherboards without a serial port, a parallel port, two ps/2 ports, and a line-in audio port?

You can, its called a ABIT legacy-free motherboard :)

--

"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
Re:PC Connector Soup by Idealius · 2004-01-29 06:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, then we'll redesign the Traffic system, too. But wait, so many people rely on the Traffic system working the way it does already -- and the number of intersections/roads to change would be immense. I guess it's just not going to happen. Kind of like your suggestion. Backward compatibility is there for a reason. Hundreds of thousands of people already rely on what's in place.
Re:PC Connector Soup by DarkDust · 2004-01-29 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, then we'll redesign the Traffic system, too. But wait, so many people rely on the Traffic system working the way it does already -- and the number of intersections/roads to change would be immense. I guess it's just not going to happen. Kind of like your suggestion. Backward compatibility is there for a reason. Hundreds of thousands of people already rely on what's in place.

Well, UNIX is also backwards compatible, at least on the source level. And if you don't use assembler or bit-modifying C code you can normally easily port a program from one computer architecture to another.

Luckily MS noticed the problems I described in my original posting as well, the .NET CLR is a reaction to it because in theory it would allow MS to port Windows (or just the CLR) to a new platform and all NET programs run unmodified (in binary).
Re:PC Connector Soup by cmowire · 2004-01-29 07:24 · Score: 1

The problem is that Intel has screwed up everything "better" than the 8086 line. Both the i432 and i860 were beautiful designs that didn't work in practice. The i860 never had a chance, and the Itanium is running the risk of joining the i432 and i860 lines as neat-but-dumb ideas.

The biggest problem is that working around all of these things only needs to be done twice. Once for Windows, once for Linux, and everybody's happy. With mass-market chipsets the way they are, they've been copy-and-pasting the VHDL for the A20 gate and whatnot from one chipset into another.

The hard lesson for Apple and others is that good design only matters so much. Crufty A20 gates, merely acceptable DMA controllers, baroque standards, etc. especially when the user doesn't see them (Taking the bluetooth/USB/ADB/etc. plunge doesn't count here) won't make the product more attractive to your buyers and may not even make your product any cheaper.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:PC Connector Soup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 07:38 · Score: 0

Still has lousy fucking onboard audio. I hate that crap.
Re:PC Connector Soup by Brandybuck · 2004-01-29 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're thinking of the advantages of centrally standardized PCs, but none of the disadvantages.

Dump the serial port? Then what do I plug my external modem into? Or do you expect me to buy a new one just so your precious sensibilities aren't offended? (just one example...)

If Intel (or Microsoft, or anyone else) where in charge of what hardware I could use, I would be royally screwed. I've got an Intel motherboard that considers USB 1.1 to be "legacy" hardware. Legacy! If Intel had its way, I couldn't upgrade individual pieces of hardware, but would have to wait until I could afford an entire new system. Use your existing parallel ATA drives in a new system? Sorry, only SATA is supported. Your old PCI ethernet card? Sorry, we're going to PCIX, and besides which, wouldn't you rather use the cheapass onboard ethernet?

And apropos this article, go buy a new goddam monitor you freaking cheapskate! You want us to support D-Sub forever?

Then there's the software side. Every year throw away all the Windows, Linux, and BSD drivers, and write new ones. Microsoft has the clear advantage here, because we all know how difficult it is to get hardware specs. "My brand new system is already a week old, and Linux STILL doesn't support it? I'm going back to Windows..."

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:PC Connector Soup by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2004-01-29 08:37 · Score: 1

Real men have 8port Comtrol serial cards (with a few extra 4port cards in the closet, just in case). My only gripe is, I can't find a 4(+) port ECP parallel port card.

Though in all honesty, I wouldn't cry if PS/2 mouse/kb ports died a horrible, ugly death...
Re:PC Connector Soup by elemental23 · 2004-01-29 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dump the serial port? Then what do I plug my external modem into? Or do you expect me to buy a new one just so your precious sensibilities aren't offended?

A reasonable interpretation of your parent post would be that the poster would like legacy-free boards to be available in addition to the current legacy-encumbered crap we get now. I don't think he said anything about not selling serial ports at all anymore.

Personally, I agree with him. It's been years since I last used a serial or parallel port. It's really past time to dump the crappy technology and move on. What year is this?

--
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Re:PC Connector Soup by T-Ranger · 2004-01-29 11:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Dump the serial port? Then what do I plug my external modem into?
You buy a used Portmaster 2-er for $31 on EBay and connect 30 modems to it.
Re:PC Connector Soup by EddWo · 2004-01-29 11:45 · Score: 1

By the end of the year you will be able to run .Net applications natively on IA64 and AMD64 systems.
By the time Longhorn comes out most new applications will be written for .Net to take advantage of the new OS features.
NT itself was originally designed to be highly portable, though that may have been corrupted somewhat in subsequent generations.
The transition to a different architecture will be slow but I think it will happen over the next decade or so.

--
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Re:PC Connector Soup by photon317 · 2004-01-29 13:16 · Score: 1

It's not hard at all to make a motherboard (and hence a whole PC) which is completely standards-compliant and backwards-compatible in every meaningful and useful way, but which has no legacy busses or ports. The ISA bus has been internalized on most modern motherboards for some time. Getting rid of parallel, serial, and PS/2 mouse/keyboard would be an easy next step. Floppy drive busses/controllers, as well as the floppy drive itself, can also take a hike. Replace it with an optional IDE LS-120 drive for those that need it.

In the end, a modern consumer PC should really only have an AGP slot (and a graphics card in it), 1-2 PCI slots, Audio I/O ports (USB audio has drawbacks), and USB ports. Sell USB->{parallell, serial, etc} adapters for people with legacy deviecs to connect. You could do that today and get away with it, but they're just dragging their collective feet about it.

--
11*43+456^2
Re:PC Connector Soup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 15:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

> I've been saying this for years: it's time to start from scratch and cut that damn downward compability.

Apple has done this more or less completely. No legacy ports, OpenFirmware, modern processor architecture, rewritten OS. The end result is better than the typical PC. Unfortunately it isn't THAT much better that people are switching in great numbers. Conclusion: starting from scratch sounds nice and elegant and the proper thing to do, but in the end it doesn't buy you that much of an advantage.
Re:PC Connector Soup by tepples · 2004-01-29 16:20 · Score: 1

Sell USB->{parallell, serial, etc} adapters for people with legacy deviecs to connect.

Will USB to parallel adapters work even with legacy DOS apps that try to directly access embedded system development kits over the parallel port? Or do they work only with Windows printer drivers?
Re:PC Connector Soup by lewp · 2004-01-29 21:13 · Score: 1

Dump the serial port? Then what do I plug my external modem into? Or do you expect me to buy a new one just so your precious sensibilities aren't offended? (just one example...)

Well, you could buy a $5 serial port card. If you think about it, it makes sense to do that rather than give serial ports to everyone, even though 99% of them aren't going to need it.
With the push to make computers smaller and more attractive, getting rid of ugly oldschool connectors that almost nobody uses makes sense.

--
Game... blouses.
Re:PC Connector Soup by kinnell · 2004-01-29 23:11 · Score: 1

Why can't I buy a motherboards without a serial port, a parallel port, two ps/2 ports, and a line-in audio port? Why do motherboards come with built in video, but not bluetooth and wireless networking?
In short, mass production/commoditisation. Motherboards have for a long time been conformant to first the AT standard, then ATX, and now new formats are emerging. These specify the form factor and the standard connectors, and where they are located. This enables any motherboard to be used with any case, any keyboard, and so on. This is why PCs are so cheap. By ditching PS/2 connectors, for example, you cut the happy PS/2 keyboard/mouse owners out of your market share, which is stupid.
As for bluetooth/WiFi, they weren't relevant when the ATX standard was being drawn up. End of story. On a related note, both AT and ATX have an irda port, but almost no computer uses this - go figure.
I you want elegant design, buy an apple, not a PC.

--
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Re:PC Connector Soup by tigersha · 2004-01-29 23:34 · Score: 1

This is the same Abit who recently brought out a motherboard with a tube amplifier on board for that authentic sound with their onboard sound. A real honest-to-god vacuum tube.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re:PC Connector Soup by versus · 2004-01-30 00:40 · Score: 1

Dump the serial port? Then what do I plug my external modem into?
Buy an USB->RS-232 converter for $5 and be happy. That's why USB hubs exist for.

--
Brain is my second favorite organ.
Re:PC Connector Soup by pcmanjon · 2004-01-31 03:51 · Score: 1

In short, why are PC compatibles such heaps of shit?

Because they are PC compatibles -- compatible with computer engineering concepts developed 20 years ago...

DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market yet by dbirchall · 2004-01-29 04:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I bought a (NEC/)Mitsubishi DiamondPoint NM56LCD panel last July at OfficeMax. 15", D-SUB _and_ DVI inputs. Why that one, instead of some cheaper Planar POS at WalMerde?

Well, I needed the D-SUB, 'cos I knew I'd be hooking it to an iBook, and all consumer-market Apple products come with VGA out, rather than DVI.

But I also planned to use it as the second monitor on a Power Mac G5 months later - and allcurrent professional-market Apple products come with DVI out (at least - the Radeon 9800 in my G5 has an ADC connector for an Apple Cinema display, and a DVI out for whatever else I want.)

Folks who say it's "high-end" are pretty much right. It's something the UXGA (1600x1200) and WUXGA (1920x1200 like my Cinema) folks have a lot more use for than the 1280x1024 folks. Right now, that's largely the pro market still.

When I can walk into WalMerde and see even a single DVI connector, then I'll know it's achieving mass-market penetration.

HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny

HDMI is bad news for consumers as it incorporates Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).

"Windows has detected you want to connect a high resolution display to your computer. Your current Windows license doesn't allow displays over 1024x768. If you wish to upgrade, please insert appendage you wish to pay with..."

Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by kenthorvath · 2004-01-29 05:22 · Score: 1

"Windows has detected you want to connect a high resolution display to your computer. Your current Windows license doesn't allow displays over 1024x768. If you wish to upgrade, please insert appendage you wish to pay with..."
Sorry, I don't think this is an issuue because it is always possible to prevent non users of DRM from setting their display resolution above a certain size. I mean, you do have to configure windows to set the display resolution. If they don't want to support that resolution it doesn't require any special act of encryption to prevent you from using it.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 05:45 · Score: 0

What it could support is some sort of "copyright" protect to lower quality of alter the image to make screen duplications difficult/bad.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 06:09 · Score: 0

Uh... no. Wow. Zowie. That's the most wrong thing I've seen on Slashdot all morning. And that's saying something. Holy cats.

Encrypted video cables make perfect sense. The idea is to prevent you from attaching your video cable to a recording device and making perfect digital copies of whatever you can play on your screen.

It's got nothing to do with Windows, or display resolution. Jeez. Man. You were so wrong on that, you weren't even wrong any more. You were something else, something out beyond wrong.

Wow.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 06:57 · Score: 0

> HDMI is bad news for consumers as it incorporates Digital Restrictions Management

Guess what? So does DVI.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 08:47 · Score: 1

Guess what? So does DVI.

DVI does NOT. HDCP, which is on top of DVI, does.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 08:54 · Score: 1

Yah, true, but it's just a joke. A little karma-whoring, I admit.

But I do see how HDMI could enable an unscrupulous scumbag^H^H^H^H^H^H^H companies to sell you a high-res screen, then sell you "licenses" to the different resolutions. Kinda like IBM does with crippled SMP mainframes. That kind of business is dishonest in my book.

Kinda like buying a V8 car with four plug wires unplugged and a locked hood. The dealer is demanding "licenses" to connect the other four and threatening you with the DMCA if you bust YOUR hood open to do it yourself. Scum.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 09:04 · Score: 1

Encrypted video cables make perfect sense.

Only if you work for the MPAA or Sony.

The idea is to prevent you from attaching your video cable to a recording device and making perfect digital copies of whatever you can play on your screen.

I have EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO . Only idiots make their legitimate customers pay for the crimes of the criminals by committing criminal acts themselves. It is A CRIME to deprive me of my fair use rights.

It's got nothing to do with Windows, or display resolution.

Sure it does. Imagine a Microsoft 1500x1500 display with HDMI. Plug it into your computer, and it responds just as I said above. The display restricts you to 640x480 until you buy a "license" to use a higher resolution. That play is already in use on mainframes, test equipment, and other devices, and it's dirty business.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 09:09 · Score: 0, Redundant

oh, and P.S. YOU COWARD!
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by chez69 · 2004-01-29 12:53 · Score: 1

Actually, having the CPUs in the machine already is better for everybody. it is cheaper to manuafacture because there is less variety, and when you want to activate them you get it right away.

you pay for what you use. what's so bad about that?

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 15:30 · Score: 0

I have EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO .

You don't, actually. You have the right to make copies. There's no requirement that those copies be absolute bit-for-bit copies. Unless some encryption form makes it impossible for you to make copies AT ALL, there's no question of "rights."

And people who hide behind rhetoric of "rights" when all they really want is to pirate music and movies are incredibly lame.

Imagine a Microsoft 1500x1500 display with HDMI. Plug it into your computer, and it responds just as I said above. The display restricts you to 640x480 until you buy a "license" to use a higher resolution.

NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCRYPTION, you fucking asshole. This capability already exists: the OS can simply refuse to drive the monitor at a given resolution if somebody chooses to program it that way. Whether the connection between the screen and the monitor is encrypted has NO EFFECT ON THIS WHATSOEVER.

If you want to believe a lie, knock yourself out, okay? But quit spreading it around. That just makes you look like a shithead.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-30 02:49 · Score: 0

You, sir, are a COWARD.

You don't, actually. You have the right to make copies. There's no requirement that those copies be absolute bit-for-bit copies.

Maybe in a communist country, where the goverment has all the rights and grants them to the citizens as they see fit. But I live in a free nation, where the citizens have all the rights, and grant them to the government as they see fit. You are either from the former, or you have forgotten the latter. I have the right to make a copy, a perfect, bit-for-bit copy, for my own use. Not only because I'm a citizen of a free country, but because the Supreme Court explicity recognized that right.

Unless some encryption form makes it impossible for you to make copies AT ALL, there's no question of "rights."

If the encryption prevents me from using my property as I see fit, then my rights have been trampled. If I by a CD, don't I have the right to use that music on my Archos portable MP3 player? By your logic, I don't. The Supreme Court disagrees with you (but doesn't call you names).

And people who hide behind rhetoric of "rights" when all they really want is to pirate music and movies are incredibly lame.

I repeat: You are a coward. You are calling me a pirate and lame. You don't even know me, coward. But I know you are a coward because of your anonymous coward posting. I have an MP3 jukebox and a portable player, and the concept of not being able to use music I BUY and OWN as I see fit is reprehensible. DRM has NEVER worked, and NEVER been good for consumers.

NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCRYPTION, you fucking asshole.

Wrong again, coward. I'm talking about the monitor controlling what it can display. The license would have to come from computer, and would be encrypted. I'm sorry you are too much of a coward to grasp the concept.

If you want to believe a lie, knock yourself out, okay? But quit spreading it around. That just makes you look like a shithead

If you want to believe that DRM helps you, go right ahead and buy into it. When you can't use things you OWN the way YOU want to, you'll have only your cowardly self to blame.

"I've always found profanity to be refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker."
- Lord Byron as paraphrased by ry4an-slashdot@ry4an.org
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-30 02:55 · Score: 1

Well, yeah, I admit it does work in some situations. But it still feels like malingering to me.

You already have everything in your posession, so when they "turn on" additional features, I don't see how they are adding value to what is already in your possesion. I guess the real proof is that the market has generally rejected these kind of schemes. Again, they do appear to work in niche markets, and this is a free country. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-01 12:57 · Score: 0

I'm talking about the monitor controlling what it can display.

It doesn't change the fact that what you described can be implemented today, with or without encrypted digital video.

If you want to believe that DRM helps you, go right ahead and buy into it.

DRM helps us all. How? By making things available that, otherwise, simply wouldn't be available. Example: music delivery over the Internet. It wouldn't be possible without DRM. Another example: large-scale video on demand. Not possible without DRM. HD-DVD. Not possible without DRM.

You can be a luddite all you want. The fact remains: DRM is necessary. Furthermore, it's here. Now, we can either have convenient DRM, or we can have inconvenient DRM. Which would you prefer?

(Your ad hominem attacks are silly, also.)
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-01 14:04 · Score: 0

The fact that you possess it isn't what's important here. The only thing that's important is what you've paid for.

IBM sells you a mainframe with N CPU's in it, then ships you one with M CPU's (M > N). Did you buy the extra CPU's? No. Do you own them? No. Do you have the right to use them? No. So what's IBM doing? It's warehousing spare parts at your facility.

When you call IBM and say that you want an additional CPU, they just turn it on. No muss, no fuss, no downtime. That's what you get in return for letting IBM warehouse CPU's at your facility.

Your problem--and other posters have pointed this out better than I could--is that you're a fucking idiot who thinks he should get everything he wants for free. That's your problem, right there. You know, just in case you were wondering.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-02 01:39 · Score: 1

It doesn't change the fact that what you described can be implemented today, with or without encrypted digital video.

I never said it couldn't. You still miss the point.

DRM helps us all. [...] Not possible without DRM. HD-DVD. Not possible without DRM.

I don't know what planet you live on. Media industries have flourished for far longer without DRM. It sounds like you bought into the RIAA's hype. DRM is always broken, and it is always a burden on the legitimate user.

You can be a luddite all you want

I'm the opposite. I'm an early adopter.

The fact remains: DRM is necessary.

Bullshit. It's never been necessary for media to succeed before, and it, I repeat, is ALWAYS defeated.

Furthermore, it's here. Now, we can either have convenient DRM, or we can have inconvenient DRM. Which would you prefer?

What planet are you from? I haven't seen "convenient" DRM yet. It's only "convenient" for those implementing the restrictions.

(Your ad hominem attacks are silly, also.)

Do you even know what that means? You're the one posting as a coward. And you're the one doing the name-calling (assuming you are the same coward). And nothing I said was without factual basis.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-02 01:45 · Score: 1

Your problem--and other posters have pointed this out better than I could--is that you're a fucking idiot who thinks he should get everything he wants for free. That's your problem, right there. You know, just in case you were wondering.

At least I have the balls to post my opinions as myself, rather than as a name-calling coward.

I don't want everything for free; I'm always willing to pay for value delivered. But flipping a switch to turn on something already in my possession hardly seems like valued delivered.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-02 07:55 · Score: 0

At least I have the balls to post my opinions as myself, rather than as a name-calling coward.

So did you momma name you "computersareevil" or was it your daddy? Is it a family name?

But flipping a switch to turn on something already in my possession hardly seems like valued delivered.

This is the part where your being an idiot comes into play.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-02 09:03 · Score: 1

Still a coward. No wonder you like DRM: You're too afraid to stand behind what you say, coward.

Skynet gave me that name, thank you very much.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-02 09:13 · Score: 0

Most people grew out of name-calling when they were about seven years old. What's your problem?
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-02 10:09 · Score: 1

Assuming you are the same anonymous coward who's been posting all along; I haven't engaged in any name-calling. You are posting as an anonymous coward, therefor I'm correctly calling you coward.

You can see from the string of messages I've never called anyone anything but coward, and that only because that is what they are: Anonymous cowards.

In contrast, I've been called a shithead, an idiot, and several other choice names here. I think I have the high ground here, coward.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-02 11:22 · Score: 0

I think I have the high ground here, coward.

Boy, did you read that one wrong.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-02 12:24 · Score: 1

And yet, you are still an anonymous coward.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-02 14:38 · Score: 0

You're still an idiot. What's your point?
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-03 03:03 · Score: 1

That you are a coward. That's not name-calling, that's fact. Why don't you use your ID to post your messages? Because you are a coward. Clearly. At least if you used your ID I could mark you as a foe and be done with it.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-03 08:53 · Score: 0

That you are a coward. That's not name-calling, that's fact.

Hmm. Interesting interpretation of "fact" you have there. Yet more evidence pointing toward your being an idiot.

Why don't you use your ID to post your messages?

What's an ID?

At least if you used your ID I could mark you as a foe and be done with it.

What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-03 10:03 · Score: 1

Hmm. Interesting interpretation of "fact" you have there. Yet more evidence pointing toward your being an idiot.

No, sorry, but it's your intelligence that is put into question here. Maybe you're new here, but look just below the subject of the message you posted. See the "by Anonymous Coward"? That's you; an anonymous coward. That means you are a coward. Fact.

What's an ID?

Uh, seriously? IDentification aka login, username, handle, etc. You know, like mine; "computersareevil".

What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?

You must be new. Despite the fact that you've called me countless names, I'll help you. Start here: http://slashdot.org/faq/accounts.shtml

Once you are logged in, you'll see a gray sphere next to posts by other people who are signed in. If it's somebody you marked as a foe, you'll see red sphere, and you can ignore (or not) those posts.

And once you have a login/ID/whatever and stop posting as an anonymous coward, you will no longer be a coward.

Now, stop calling me names, coward! ;)
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-03 11:12 · Score: 0

Maybe you're new here, but look just below the subject of the message you posted. See the "by Anonymous Coward"? That's you; an anonymous coward.

I didn't put that on there. Not my problem. Take it up with the yokels who run this place.

Start here: http://slashdot.org/faq/accounts.shtml

Not interested.

Once you are logged in, you'll see a gray sphere next to posts by other people who are signed in.

So completely not worth it.

Now, stop calling me names, coward! ;)

Wow. What a complete shithead.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-04 06:58 · Score: 1

Wow. What a complete shithead.

Sheesh. I try to help you out and you call me a shithead. You are a fine human being, as well as a coward.

And what's even sadder is that you have to seek this thread out to see if I've posted anything new. Whereas all I have to do is go to my subscription page and there it is. So you, a coward, have to take extra effort just to get to this thread and call me names. What a sad little coward!
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 14:01 · Score: 0

I try to help you out and you call me a shithead.

Nobody asked you for help, you arrogant asshole. You rambled at incomprehensible and mind-numbing length about the intricacies of a silly web site that nobody even bothers to use anyway. What the hell? Seriously?

And what's even sadder is that you have to seek this thread out to see if I've posted anything new.

Unfamiliar with the concept of the "bookmark," I guess.

What a sad little coward!

Whatever it takes for you to feel better about yourself, man.
Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-02-05 03:21 · Score: 1

Nobody asked you for help, you arrogant asshole.

Not only are you a coward, but you forget what you wrote. I quote:

What's an ID?
and
What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?

These are your questions from your post. You did ask them, and it's not necessary to resort to name-calling because you can't remember your own posts.

You rambled at incomprehensible and mind-numbing length about the intricacies of a silly web site that nobody even bothers to use anyway

A dozen sentences is mind-numbing length? I guess you don't read much.

And which site would that be? The one which you've been following for about seven days and posted about as many times? Yep, nobody even bothers to use it.

Unfamiliar with the concept of the "bookmark," I guess.

How sad that you chose to bookmark this thread just so you can return here to anonymously and cowardly hurl obscenities at somebody you don't even know.

Whatever it takes for you to feel better about yourself, man.

I feel better about myself every time you post another name-calling diatribe. I feel better every time I hold out an olive branch and you respond by spouting more vitriol.

Coward.

(and again, that's not name-calling, that's fact.)

Both inputs available for a while yet. by bryanp · 2004-01-29 04:57 · Score: 1

As has already been mentioned, dual inputs for DVI and D-SUB are becoming common on the better LCD panels. In many cases having D-SUB as an option allows for solutions to problems that are good enough and a lot less expensive.

Whenever I get around to buying an LCD monitor it will definitely have both, but that won't be until I can buy an LCD that is larger than my 19" CRT for less than I paid (about $400 at the time).

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper

dsub is cheaper by beegle · 2004-01-29 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

DVI connectors, cables, and designs still cost more than VGA -- both for the consumer and for the producer. On top of that, there's a chicken-and-egg problem where people need DVI to VGA converters for compatability with existing equipment.

If my video card and your video card have the same chipset, but you use VGA and I use DVI, my card'll cost a little more. If I include a DVI to VGA adapter, it'll cost even more. Since our cards have the same chips, most people will buy your card.

--
--

Where are the KVMs? by h3 · 2004-01-29 05:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

What I wanna know is where are the DVI-based KVM switches? I was recently in the market for one and couldn't find any. A 4-port DVI+USB would've been my ideal, but alas such a thing doesn't exist afaik and that's why I'm still using VGA.

-h3

Re:Where are the KVMs? by Paladin128 · 2004-01-29 06:33 · Score: 1

Belkin makes a model, but it ain't cheap. MSRP is $325, and it comes with no cables. The cables are $80 each. So if you want to connect 4 PC's, that's a whopping $645.

--
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Re:Where are the KVMs? by buysse · 2004-01-29 08:41 · Score: 1

StarTech may have what you're looking for. DVI, USB, dual-display (analog), etc.

This has not been a paid advertisement for any company.

--
-30-
Re:Where are the KVMs? by stangbat · 2004-01-29 09:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Newegg has a couple. Unfortunately they don't switch the sound like my current Belkin model does.

My new 20" LCD monitor should be here today and it will have a DVI input. I'm debating the purchase of a DVI KVM because I run dual monitors and switch both of them with two KVMs. I'm going to try out the new beast without DVI and see how it looks before I drop the cash for a new KVM.
Re:Where are the KVMs? by h3 · 2004-01-29 16:00 · Score: 1

Ouch! I should've been more specific as I certainly couldn't afford spending that for my home systems. In fact, that would've cost *more* than 2 of the systems I'd have connected to it :p.

I wound up with a VGA+USB one from Iogear for about $110 including cables...

-h3

Technical failure == market failure. by Gadzinka · 2004-01-29 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why has DVI been a relative failure in the market?

I was under the impression that specs for the digital part of DVI interface didn't let it show eg 1600x1200 resolution in any sensible refresh rate. I distantly recall reading some years ago about plans of some sort of HR-DVI that would address this isue, but never heard about it again.

Could someone knowing exact specs correct me?

Robert

--
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162

Re:Technical failure == market failure. by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-01-29 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative

I was under the impression that specs for the digital part of DVI interface didn't let it show eg 1600x1200 resolution in any sensible refresh rate. I distantly recall reading some years ago about plans of some sort of HR-DVI that would address this isue, but never heard about it again.
I don't know if the spec has been formalized for it, but most nvidia and ATI cards can support something like 100Hz 1920x1200 now.
This was really more of a problem a year or two ago, as anyone who's got a pricey Viewsonic vp201m 20 inch flat screen will attest to when they next go to upgrade their video card. So few cards are supported for its digital 1600x1200 mode that Viewsonic isn't even willing to provide a list, apparently for fear of a well-deserved press backlash. They'll only answer yes or no if you ask about a specific card.
Re:Technical failure == market failure. by cmowire · 2004-01-29 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

A single DVI channel won't give you 1600x1200. Two DVI channels will. A lot of video cards only include one channel.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:Technical failure == market failure. by hab136 · 2004-01-29 08:15 · Score: 1

I have a Dell 2001FP with an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, and run it with the included DVI cable at 1600x1200 all day long. There is no problem with DVI and higher resolutions, at least up to 1600x1200.
Re:Technical failure == market failure. by Brandybuck · 2004-01-29 08:30 · Score: 1

This was really more of a problem a year or two ago...

So exactly how often do you expect me to upgrade my video, and who's going to pay for it?

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Technical failure == market failure. by cmowire · 2004-01-29 10:47 · Score: 1

Your card has dual DVI then. ;)

--
Gentoo Sucks

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by addaon · 2004-01-29 05:40 · Score: 1

Does DVI-D even support WUXGA? I vaguely recall the DVI spec ending at 1600x1200, which is (in theory) one reason apple is going with ADC.

--

I've had this sig for three days.

Answer by BoomerSooner · 2004-01-29 05:59 · Score: 0

Because you keep buying!

Because people are cheap and don't care by hirschma · 2004-01-29 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

As many posts have covered, it costs more for a manufacturer to offer DVI. So as a result, VGA continues to be the default offering, despite the fact that it sucks.

Even 10 years ago higher ended monitors and cards came with BNC connectors. Why? Because the VGA connector isn't meant to deal with high res graphics - you start getting crosstalk between pins, and that shows up as visual artifacts. IBM designed the standard for 640x480x256 colors. It wasn't meant to scale to high-res 32 bit.

Consumers, however, won't spend an extra $50-$100 to get the better visuals. I'm all DVI, and the quality difference is substantial. Sharper text, no ghosting, more vivid colors. Generally easier installs, too.

At any rate, you're dealing with a consumer base that choose VHS, wouldn't spend for SCSI, and won't spring for a Mac. They don't know the difference, and they don't _want_ to know about the difference. And the marketplace has responded.

Jonathan

Re:Because people are cheap and don't care by BrookHarty · 2004-01-29 10:33 · Score: 1

Really depends on the cable, even on a KVM if you have cheap cables you can have ghosting. A good SVGA cable will run around 25 bux, a cheap VGA will run about 7. Theres a reason you use quality connections.

But if you are talking DSUB vs DVI on LCD, you could easily tell the difference. But on my nice Sony 22 inch monitor, the picture is far better that a 19inch NEC LCD.

You really need to see an LCD/Monitor in action, plus higher end LCD's have 3 connections, 2 DVI and 1 DSUB, which really rocks if you dont want to pass video through a KVM and distort the picture.
Re:Because people are cheap and don't care by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 07:22 · Score: 0

It was 320x200x256 or 640x480x up to 16. First generation VGA didn't have enough memory or speed for more.

Furthermore, it wasn't "256 colors". It was "up to 256 simultaneous colors out of a possible 262,144 colors".

And, compared to its predecessor EGA, it looked incredible, especially on a 14" screen.
</pedantic>
Re:Because people are cheap and don't care by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 16:56 · Score: 0

The VGA connector is analog. It wasn't designed for any finite number of colors, regardless of what the first RAMDAC used by IBM was capable of.

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 06:13 · Score: 0

DVI is an electrical specification. It doesn't care what you run over the pins.

ADC is nothing more or less than DVI plus USB plus power all in one cable with one plug. An ADC-to-DVI adapter simply pins out the DVI pins and leaves the USB and power pins unterminated. And it works far beyond 1600x1200.

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by addaon · 2004-01-29 06:19 · Score: 1

While I'll take your word that DVI works beyond 1600x1200... an electrical specification specifies the tolerances of the connection, yes? Which directly correlates to available bandwidth, yes? Assuming (as you seem to state) that the specification doesn't include any protocol for specifying resolution or timing, there are still essential limits on available resolution imposed by any specification.

--

I've had this sig for three days.

Import Duty by skinfitz · 2004-01-29 06:28 · Score: 1

Aparently HM Customs in the UK are about to increase import duty on DVI monitors, thus further pushing up the price.

Justify? by Gothmolly · 2004-01-29 07:15 · Score: 1

Please justify that the VGA DSub connector sucks. I have a 1600x1200x32bit display here via DSub, and it looks great - nice and bright, clear lines, good contrast, no weird artifacts.
Don't be such a snob. I'm sure you're someone who can hear the difference between FLAC and WAV.
PS. You post carries no extra weight if you 'sign' your name to it.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:Justify? by hirschma · 2004-01-29 08:35 · Score: 1

Justify? How about I've done a side-by-side comparison, and the DVI connected model was visibly superior - to me, and others in the household? Same video card, same monitor (I have two), DVI better.

It isn't a status thing - it is a quality thing. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Jonathan
Re:Justify? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 09:24 · Score: 0

Someone piss in your Wheaties this morning?
Re:Justify? by Deternal · 2004-01-29 09:46 · Score: 1

If you only tried MS DOS you might think that was the pinnacle of OS development (lucky for us, it isn't).

VGA isn't very good - a lot of things a being done to mitigate it, and the technology is very mature so that helps - but of course better stuff will be developed. And DVI is definitely one such thing.

This is like saying "oh, my old tv from the 80'es is just as good as your brand spanking new flatscreen HDTV" - it just doesn't compare.

But granted - for most things, VGA does the job :)

Give it 5 more years... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

To see where the industry is going, take a look at Apple. The technologies Apple uses today, will be the main stream technology I few years down the road in the PC universe..

Cases in point: The Mouse, The Graphical User Interface, 32-bit processors, Color Displays (8-bit), True Color Displays (24-bit+), CD drives in every computer, USB.

Apple didn't invent any of it, they were just one of the earliest adopters. But these technologies are now used in almost all PCs you can buy today.

Apple Today: Digital only display connectors (DVI, mini-DVI, ADC) (pro systems), CD-R/DVD drives (every system but 1), 64-bit processors (Powermac/Xserve lines), wireless networking...

The smart bet is all these technologies will be common place in the PC industry one day.

Re:Give it 5 more years... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 20:07 · Score: 0

CD-R/DVD drives (every system but 1)

Which one? Or are you actually counting XServe?
Re:Give it 5 more years... by spongman · 2004-01-30 22:46 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's pretty easy to do when you control the hardware, the software and the market for both.
In the PC world it's somewhat harder to include some piece of hardware that hardly anyone's going to use when your competitor can leave it out and charge $50 less for effectively the same machine.

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by dbirchall · 2004-01-29 07:37 · Score: 1

According to http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html single-link DVI supports up to 1920x1080 @ 60Hz; dual-link DVI supports up to 2048x1536 @ 60Hz. Since WUXGA is 1920x1200, the non-Apple monitors that support it (Sony has a 23" one, same panel as Apple's, for about $100 or so more with more inputs) must be using dual-link DVI, I guess. Of course if you want to run an IBM T220, you'll need some other connection entirely... ;)

So does DVI by Valdrax · 2004-01-29 07:43 · Score: 1

What, have you never head of HDCP before? You haven't been shopping for an HDTV lately, I take it. In fact, the new HDTV tuner cards from ATI and others all have HDCP support to prevent you from bypassing the damned digital broadcast flag.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").

Re:So does DVI by lowmagnet · 2004-01-29 08:46 · Score: 1

The question I have is this: if you use the linux-based dvr configs, will they support this card without the DRM technology, or is the flag pervasive enough that it cannot be avoided?

--
Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
Re:So does DVI by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 09:15 · Score: 1

What, have you never head of HDCP before?

Yes, of course, but it is laid on top of DVI. It is not part of the DVI spec. My impression is HDMI is DRM and recurring revenue masquerading as an interconnect standard.

DRM that restricts my fair use rights is illegal, doomed to failure, and just plain wrong. Haven't they learned anything from the software industry? Don't punish your paying customers!

What? by Tom7 · 2004-01-29 07:59 · Score: 1

most LCDs still have only an analog input

What? An LCD with analog input is entirely missing the point. I know they exist, but I don't think they're the majority.

Re:What? by Pembers · 2004-01-29 23:22 · Score: 1

What? An LCD with analog input is entirely missing the point. I know they exist, but I don't think they're the majority.

I wouldn't know about the majority, but the LCD I bought a few months ago has only an analogue input. This is a Philips 150B4, 15" at 1024*768 - maybe not exactly high end, but it fits nicely on the desk. The model above in that range, a 17", does have a DVI input.

The annoying thing is that the graphics card in my main machine, an ATi Radeon something-or-other, has a DVI output (only), and came with a big clunky adapter for plugging a VGA cable into it. I would definitely have gone for a monitor with a DVI input, except that this machine is plugged into a KVM switch with another machine that doesn't have a DVI output. Confused yet? ;-)

--
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...

Still coming by curtvdh · 2004-01-29 08:23 · Score: 1

I suspect the market for DVI/HDMI will be driven not by PCs but at first by HDTV monitors. My Panasonic 42" Plasma has both D-Sub and DVI connectors. DVD players with DVI/HDMI outputs are becoming more numerous. It won't be long before PC manufacturers will feel the need to catch up in the name of 'convergence'.

Unfortunately, they are by Alereon · 2004-01-29 08:35 · Score: 1

Go take a look at LCDs on the market. Especially in the low end, the vast majority have only VGA input. It's exceedingly retarded, but whatchagonnado.

Re:Unfortunately, they are by Tom7 · 2004-01-29 08:52 · Score: 1

I guess, not buy at the low end.
Re:Unfortunately, they are by tepples · 2004-01-29 16:26 · Score: 1

Not everyone can find a job at more than minimum wage, you insensitive clod!

Probably because monitors last longer than PCs by Kris_J · 2004-01-29 09:39 · Score: 1

There is a huge installed base of working VGA monitors with the 15-pin sub-D connection. My Multiscan 500PS is a big old expensive beautiful monitor and it's not going anywhere. As it happens my new-ish video card has VGA, DVI and S-Video and can output on any two at a time. I have my Sony monitor and a Philips TV hooked up at the moment. It also comes with a DVI-to-VGA adapter, which was used to try and debug what turned out to be a documentation error.

At work I'm getting dual-head cards in all the new PCs. As PCs die their old monitors are connected as a second screen to new PCs While the low profile cards only have a DVI connection, it is immediately split into two analog ports for two cheap analog monitors. We only have one PC with a DVI monitor -- an odd machine that was bought while we were testing a new supplier. Sure the screen looks nice, but it's still cheaper and easier to go with the old connector at the moment. Give it a couple of years.

DVD playback by Yrd · 2004-01-29 10:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know this is nuts, but Macrovision-protected DVDs don't play on my Windows box when my LCD is plugged into the DVI output on my graphics card.

Don't you just love Microsoft? The problem, they say, is some failure to initialise analogue copy protection. I assume a Mac will play the same disk over a digital monitor line, so all we can say here is Windows is poo. But until that kind of thing works, DVIs aren't going to work for mass-market.

Or is there just something horribly horribly wrong with my system?

Not that it's much of a problem, I just watch those DVDs with Xine :-)

--
Miri it is whil Linux ilast...

Re:DVD playback by alan_dershowitz · 2004-01-30 08:49 · Score: 1

That sounds like an application error. Windows doesn't care if you have an analog interface or not. I play DVDs on CRT monitor,and that doesn't have any "analog copy protection", so I'm not sure what they mean.
Re:DVD playback by Chanc_Gorkon · 2004-01-31 04:25 · Score: 1

Works fine on my DVI LCD Panel. Must be you.

--
Gorkman
Re:DVD playback by Yrd · 2004-02-01 08:31 · Score: 1

Well, I guess it must be. I wonder how I go about fixing that then?

--
Miri it is whil Linux ilast...

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-29 10:36 · Score: 0

It's not an analog signal. It's a digital signal. Allow me to use an analogy: "Sure, it's 1000 Mbps Ethernet, but you can't do more than 512 KB/s, right?"

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by Dahan · 2004-01-29 12:24 · Score: 1

It's an analog universe (at least until you get to the quantum level :). So while it may be a digital signal, it's also an analog signal and is limited by the electronics and wiring. Just as you're not going to get 1000Mbps out of 2 pairs of a Cat 3 cable, you're not going to get 40000x30000x24bpp@100Hz out of DVI. There's a limit, although I don't know what that limit is off the top of my head (it is higher than 1600x1200 though).

Also... by sbszine · 2004-01-29 12:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Great post. Add FireWire and widescreen displays to that list.

--

Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

Re:Simple - 6' on Analog high res... by AtariDatacenter · 2004-01-29 15:38 · Score: 1

FWIW, I'm currently running 1920x1200 @73Hz on a 6' VGA cable. If there is any image degredation, it is below a threshold of where it can be noticed. Really nice image.

Patents by tepples · 2004-01-29 16:23 · Score: 1

There's no reason for everybody not to use the best and sell a $10 retail doggle to "dumb" it down

Other than patents that Apple has every right to refuse to license?

Re:Patents by mabhatter654 · 2004-01-31 09:52 · Score: 1

You've got a point....although I don't think it's as much that Apple will refuse as that board makers simply won't pay ANYBODY royalties....that was the situation with Firewire...Untill apple stopped collecting royalties (only like $1 per port! not much) everybody refused to put them on machines except sony...an apple partner already.
You may be right that they don't want to give up their "edge" for macs...but I thought that the original DVI implementation spec supported the USB uplink [i.e. Apple's version] when the papers were written....now we know why W3C is so resistant to patent-encumbered specs, hun!
Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 11:50 · Score: 0

$1 per port per motherboard!? Holy crap, manufacturers only clear about $20 off a board that retails for $80, and now they're supposed to abandon 5-10% of their gross revenue just to offer slower ports that are only required for digital video cameras?

Cable costs? by CmdrTHAC0 · 2004-01-29 16:57 · Score: 1

You can get a $250 CRT with a D-sub soldered right into it (this was my 17" Optiquest in 2000), or a $500 Mitsubishi LCD (also 17", 2003) with a separate Dsub-to-Dsub cable. If you want DVI for the LCD, it'll set you back an additional $30 for the cable. (Or $70 if you don't comparison shop and just get it from Best Buy.)

I really would rather have a DVI-only LCD with no A/D conversion circuitry in it at all, but not being a designer of such things, I don't know how much it would actually save. Demand probably isn't all that great either.

--
__CmdrTHAC0__
In Soviet Russia, Spanish Inquisition doesn't expect YOU!!

DosBox is your friend by leonbrooks · 2004-01-29 19:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Your DOS apps will be asking "What USB?" when you run them safely isolated from reality. Now I have to find a working 5.25" floppy drive so I can have a go at getting my old DOS games back. You can print to file, take screenshots of games with no native screenshot capability, use devices like USB optical mice or graphics tablets that the game authors never even dreamed about.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:DVI is getting there, but it's not mass-market by dbirchall · 2004-01-29 20:19 · Score: 1

See my other followup higher in this thread... 1920x1080 single link DVI, 2048x1536 dual link DVI. And besides, Dahan, nobody would want 40000 x 30000. 4:3 ratios are no fun. Gotta have the widescreen 16:10 (that'd be 40000 x 25000, if my math isn't bad this late at night) for watching DVD's! :)

Using PC through HDMI on HDTV by Clueless+User · 2004-01-30 10:24 · Score: 1

I just bought a new rear projection HDTV from Pioneer and have hooked a PC in to the "composite" input of the TV. This TV has a HDMI input, but the documentation explicitly says that you should not hook a PC input to it. Is this just a "scare" tactic or is there a ligitimate reason not to hook the PC to it?

Re:Using PC through HDMI on HDTV by frumin · 2004-01-30 17:59 · Score: 1

You'll get a 'burn in' if you do. These TVs can't display static images for an extended period of time. Hence the warning ^_^

--
I punched a baby once.

That's odd... by Andy+Dodd · 2004-02-07 15:43 · Score: 1

Dell's 1800FP is usually one of the cheapest DVI-capable monitors available.

When I bought it about a year ago, I paid $530ish for it.

The cheapest non-Dell 17" LCD with DVI I could find was over $600.

So I paid $70 less, got DVI, and got an extra inch of diagonal...

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

Slashdot Mirror

Why Hasn't the DVI Interface Replaced D-Sub?

156 comments