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? ;)

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).

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 :-)