Slashdot Mirror
Why Hasn't the DVI Interface Replaced D-Sub?
nic1m asks: "When DVI connectors started appearing on video cards I thought they were a smart replacement for the old D-Sub analog connector because DVI can support both digital and analog displays. With LCDs rapidly gaining market share I would have expected DVI to replace D-Sub by now. Almost the opposite seems to be happening, however. Many video cards still lack DVI, most LCDs still have only an analog input, and motherboard-based graphics never have DVI. Why has DVI been a relative failure in the market?"
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?
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!
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
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.
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).
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.
--
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
> 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.