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?"

Comments

Re:Simple

[dFaust]

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.

Technical failure == market failure.

[Gadzinka]

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

DVD playback

[Yrd]

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 :-)