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

Posted by Cliff on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:21AM from the displacing-entrenched-technology dept.

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?"

2 of 156 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right by computersareevil · 2004-01-29 09:09 · Score: 0, Redundant

oh, and P.S. YOU COWARD!
Re:Analog good enough for now by Uma+Thurman · 2004-01-29 10:48 · Score: -1, Redundant

There's no reason to use a DVI connector with an analog signal, is there? The cable is more expensive, and analog is good enough for now. Later, when resolutions have increased and digital signals are the only ones used, why should there be pins for the analog signal?

--
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!