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

Simple

[caperry]

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.

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.

Re:Simple

[terpia]

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? ;)

Dell has not been totally NON-DVI

[fruitbane]

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

[Joseph Vigneau]

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.

Analog good enough for now

[Uma Thurman]

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.

I think its too soon to be crying out its dead

[a.koepke]

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.

PC Connector Soup

[bellings]

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?

Re:PC Connector Soup

[DarkDust]

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).

HDMI = DRM = Patented != Fair Use Right

[computersareevil]

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..."

dsub is cheaper

[beegle]

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.

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

Because people are cheap and don't care

[hirschma]

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

Give it 5 more years...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 :-)