Slashdot Mirror


VGA and DVI Ports To Be Phased Out Over Next 5 Years

angry tapir writes "Legacy VGA and DVI display ports are likely to be phased out in PCs over the next five years, according to a study by NPD In-Stat. Intel and Advanced Micro Devices are ending chipset support for VGA by 2015. The VGA interface was originally introduced in 1986 and DVI was introduced in 1999."

704 comments

  1. why phase out DVI? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it gives me crystal-clear digital connection to my monitor, and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

    1. Re:why phase out DVI? by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trying to close the analog hole I guess. Using "smart" HDMI can more easily be used with DRMs. Coupled with machine you can not choose the OS of, and you might have quite annoying copy protection schemes.

    2. Re:why phase out DVI? by kimvette · · Score: 5, Funny

      and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

      That is why it is being killed off.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:why phase out DVI? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Because mini-displayport is more expensive, I mean "better".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:why phase out DVI? by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      Because futurists are moronic and don't understand that dvi = hdmi in terms of quality.

    5. Re:why phase out DVI? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Informative

      the port connector's huge. Not to mention Dual Link DVI is a pain in the ass.

      Display Port/Mini Display Port is tiny and free.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:why phase out DVI? by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Informative

      It lacks any "copy protection". Don't worry, the (MP|RI)AA thought police will be around shortly to help correct your faulty logic. If this fails, then they will work with their friends in the government to put you someplace safe and quite where you cannot be a threat to others with your silly notions.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:why phase out DVI? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 2

      it gives me crystal-clear digital connection to my monitor, and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

      I suspect this is the problem. There are better option that are Defective By Design compliant, i don't see why we should settle for anything less in 2012.

    8. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVI can support the same HDCP protection as HDMI because it's the same fucking thing with a different connector shape. The anti-HDMI fud here is idiotic.

    9. Re:why phase out DVI? by HerculesMO · · Score: 5, Informative

      DVI-D has copy protection just as good as HDMI. It supports HDCP.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    10. Re:why phase out DVI? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      In fact, technically you need a HDCP compliant monitor, video card and HDMI cable to play back blu-ray movies under Windows 7.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    11. Re:why phase out DVI? by Millennium · · Score: 1

      it gives me crystal-clear digital connection to my monitor, and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

      Actually, those are the exact reasons: to force people into an upgrade cycle, and to plug the so-called analog hole.

    12. Re:why phase out DVI? by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    13. Re:why phase out DVI? by Ynot_82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "Analogue Hole" is unaffected by digital restrictions
      It's the illegitimate* analogue re-capturing of a legitimately decoded digital stream
      Think TV-capture card

      * From "their" POV

    14. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the consumer's standpoint - displayport and HDMI are nice, small connectors. Smaller connector means you can build smaller devices. Thinner laptops. More dense arrangements of ports on the back of your box, etc.

      From the standpoint of the media companies, it's another step towards getting rid of analog output.

    15. Re:why phase out DVI? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this news should make us all VERY happy if we don't like defective-by-design.

      You have millions of perfectly working monitors that are about to become obsolete, unless you use an HDMI-to-VGA converter.

      That looks like a huge market, and products always come out for huge markets. Every corporate interest in America except for the MPAA is going to be in favor of being able to display full-resolution on their existing VGA displays.

      I'm typing this on a CRT monitor attached to a VGA cable. My LCD display at work as a VGA port. I just bought a brand new LCD with only VGA (it was cheap). I doubt that anybody is going to be able to make it completely obsolete in only 5 years...

    16. Re:why phase out DVI? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      DisplayPort/HDMI type plugs are nicer on mobile devices, I imagine - I still have DVI and VGA on some of my laptops, and plugging and unplugging them makes me cringe because I'm going to break pins any day now (after thousands of pluggings)...

    17. Re:why phase out DVI? by poltsy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the connector is inconveniently large. How exactly doesn't HDMI work every time without fail? It's the same signal, no?

    18. Re:why phase out DVI? by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

      Because mini display port is better in every single way. The connector is smaller (60% of PCs sold are mobile), better (its more rigid and the cable is less likely to fall out), supports higher bandwidth and can be used for more than just video.

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    19. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Single-link DVI and HDMI are the same signal! They have the exact same TMDS pins! The ones and zeroes are identical! It's the same thing!

    20. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Just as long as they dont get rid of D-SUB!

    21. Re:why phase out DVI? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Informative

      HDCP supported DVI before it supported HDMI, and has been available on graphics cards for years. This won't be closing any holes.

    22. Re:why phase out DVI? by PIBM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The port connector might be 'huge' by your standard, but at least it won't get out by itself, from either the computer or the monitors. I'm using 3 30" monitor in 2560x1600, and the images are always perfect, switch on immediatly too.

      On a TV gaming setup in the basement with HDMI, when there's way too much bass and the TV is vibrating with the sound (older retroprojection TV in which there is a lot of air), there happens some time where the security signal is lost and we lose the image for a few seconds, until it synchronize back. Doesn't happen with the DVI connector, which is a big plus for them.

      Anyway, what was your point about the dual link DVI being a PITA ?

    23. Re:why phase out DVI? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you can also play Blu-ray movies with an HDCP compliant monitor, video card and DVI cable. Or you can do it with VGA. Or you can do it on a integrated display (like a laptop). You just can't do it with non-HDCP digital video out whether HDMI or DVI (well, not at full res you can't, it must be downsampled to 960x540).

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    24. Re:why phase out DVI? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just had a funny thought last night...

      Say you're a consumer electronics manufacturer, like, oh, Sony, and you make audio, then later video recording devices "for the masses," you sell them in quantity, get them in the hands of Joe Average, and let him record whatever he wants, which you know is about 98.9% copies of commercial works and 1% his garage band (playing cover tunes without a license) or 2 year old reciting the cereal commercial from T.V., and 0.1% actual, legitimate use.

      So, what's your next move? Why, get into the commercial content industry, of course... music, movies, basically anything that makes something worthy of copying with the very same consumer electronics you've successfully sold for the last decade or three... It's a booming industry, lots of money to make there.

      And, then what? Well, of course, you go and clamp down on all this horrid copyright infringement that you yourself have been enabling and implicitly promoting for 50 years.

      Entrapment is (rarely, but sometimes) a valid argument against the police, why not corporations?

    25. Re:why phase out DVI? by bemymonkey · · Score: 2

      Don't you mean lack of dual link DVI is a pain in the ass? What problems are there with dual link, other than cheap graphics cards from 5 years ago not having had it?

    26. Re:why phase out DVI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Or you can use various unlicenced decryption methods, in which case you don't need an HDCP compliant anything. Pirates win again.

    27. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DVI was confusing to non-geeks.

      You had, what..

      DVI-D, DVI-A, and DVI-I .. plus "single link" and "dual link" thrown in for good measure, and different cables supporing subsets of those and adapters and a variety of "this works with that, but not this other thing".

      HDMI is HDMI .. you plug it in and not worry about whether you are using the right mode / cable for your setup.

    28. Re:why phase out DVI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pirates don't even need the analog hole. Both HD-DVD and blu-ray have been cracked enough to just decrypt the disc.

    29. Re:why phase out DVI? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trying to close the analog hole I guess. Using "smart" HDMI can more easily be used with DRMs. Coupled with machine you can not choose the OS of, and you might have quite annoying copy protection schemes.

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    30. Re:why phase out DVI? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, the HDMI connector seems a bit more robust from a physical standpoint, and seems like it would use a lot less metal.

      I don't think that's the reason though.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    31. Re:why phase out DVI? by Megaweapon · · Score: 5, Informative

      DVI can support the same HDCP protection as HDMI because it's the same fucking thing with a different connector shape. The anti-HDMI fud here is idiotic.

      Making HDMI ports requires a license/royalty (whereas things like DisplayPort is an open VESA standard and requires no royalty payments).

      --
      I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    32. Re:why phase out DVI? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This could be solved without actually modifying the HDMI "connector" itself - just some body work around it.

      No technical reason you couldn't put securing screws around an HDMI connector, is what I mean.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re:why phase out DVI? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Interesting point.

    34. Re:why phase out DVI? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      The "Analogue Hole" is unaffected by digital restrictions
      It's the illegitimate* analogue re-capturing of a legitimately decoded digital stream
      Think TV-capture card

      * From "their" POV

      Which is rather pointless anyway. Most of the broadcasts I've seen on Youtube (before they get shut down) are from a video camera pointed at a TV screen. Low tech, but still effective for the nondiscriminating market for inauthentic video.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    35. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Plus it doesn't require the user to figure out which of several varients they need (A, D, I, single/dual link?) .. just plug the thing in and don't think about it.

      I think this is where DVI failed. They made the connector too smart, and non-geeks got confused.

    36. Re:why phase out DVI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And from the standpoint of electronics companies, lots of buying of new monitors.

    37. Re:why phase out DVI? by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect it is less because they want to close the analog hole.. and more 'because they can'. This is a huge power trip, and executives who push tech companies to do stuff like this successfully will have promotions and new oppurtutnies awaiting them because they showed how far they can piss.

    38. Re:why phase out DVI? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Because futurists are moronic and don't understand that dvi = hdmi in terms of quality.

      This is also likely pushed for by a Far-Eastern Cable Manufacturing Syndicate, who realise the present market for DVI and VGA is saturated, the only thing to do is push for new markets for their cable wares. And when that's saturated it'll be some Video Optical Interface Device which they'll be promoting. Acthpt is only pawn in great game of life. :-(

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    39. Re:why phase out DVI? by jythie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless it doesn't work....

    40. Re:why phase out DVI? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

      That is why it is being killed off.

      Puts me in mind of the wonderful move to SATA connectors .. you know, those damn things which come loose and you have to shut down, open cabinet and push back in place? Honestly, what a horrible connector. HDMI impresses me as another connector which is weak. The next standard will probably have a built in spring for pushing it out at various intervals (usually while you are in the middle of that big presentation, like I was on Wednesday and the video cable to the projector kept falling out.)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    41. Re:why phase out DVI? by drewness · · Score: 2

      Because mini-displayport is more expensive, I mean "better".

      In what sense is it more expensive? Apple made the license free and it's been submitted and accepted as an official part of the VESA DisplayPort 1.2 spec. And unlike DVI, you can also put audio over it. HDMI also supoorts audio, but it costs $0.15/unit in licensing fees plus an annual $10,000 fee.

    42. Re:why phase out DVI? by cr_nucleus · · Score: 4, Informative

      All fullsize displayport adapters i've seen feature a couple of little hooks to prevent cable getting loose.
      You then need to press some kind of button to release the plug and extract it, a-la rj45.

    43. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVI and HDMI are exactly the same cable, just with different form factors.

      However, it is difficult and expensive to convert HDMI to vga (digital to analog) so I don't expect VGA to be going anywhere for the next decade. It's just too damn useful for plugging in legacy monitors.

    44. Re:why phase out DVI? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's what I was wondering about. HDMI ports are physically smaller than DVI ports are and so you can put two of them on a half height video card relatively easily. But, I have a feeling that the HDMI connector is engineered to be plugged and unplugged more frequently as it's typically used for TVs and all manner of camera, game system, laptop and really anything that needs to plug into the TV.

      Plus it does have a few extra features like the ability of the device that's plugged into the TV to adjust the sound.

    45. Re:why phase out DVI? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      Yes, but it will only work on x86 CPUs with the HCF instruction set extension.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    46. Re:why phase out DVI? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      not just old low end cards missing dual link, but also adapting around and cables. I don't think I own one Dual Link cable. most HDMI cables I've got are single link.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    47. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah, people are sitting on too many working monitors. When you have a working monitor, why buy a new one? Because your new computer/video card doesn't support the cables from the old monitor!

    48. Re:why phase out DVI? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      Mini DisplayPort is not higher bandwidth than DVI. Mini DP has perhaps 10-15% better (usable) bandwidth than single-link DVI. But dual-link DVI has 100% better bandwidth than single-link DVI.

      All of them are affected by cable length, but at any given cable length, dual-link DVI supports almost double the resolution as Mini DP.

      Mini DP's connector is not less likely to fall out than DVI, DVI's connector has screws to hold it in. MiniDP does not.

      Thunderbolt is not Mini DP. It is nice that Thunderbolt can situated in the same connector as MiniDP and that Thunderbolt can be used for other things. Thunderbolt however is not cost-effective. It requires active cables with signal conditioning in each end. These cables are currently $75 and are not likely to drop to the reasonable prices of USB 3.0 cables ever. And at longer cable lengths you must by optical cables and those will cost even more since the cable has the optical transceivers in it.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    49. Re:why phase out DVI? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      I've heard that DisplayPort is technically superior, but at this point it's not going to be catching up, at least not in the mainstream. Reminds me a bit of Firewire, it was in someways superior, but outside of niche uses how many people even have a port anymore?

    50. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never seen that happen - they are always snug when I've used them. I have never heard of such a thing as SATA connectors falling out (even after transporting desktops in trucks). That said SATA is hot-swap, so you shouldn't need to shut down.

    51. Re:why phase out DVI? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I never even knew that there were DVI cables missing the second link...

    52. Re:why phase out DVI? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      HDMI doesn't mandate that you use DRM, it just supports HDCP. If you're running Linux or are running Windows, but not using software that requires HDCP, then you're not likely to see any difference at all.

      If you do, there are software packages available which allow you to strip out the encryption and depending upon where you are that may or may not be legal. If it's not legal then you really shouldn't encourage them to use that crap by buying protected discs.

    53. Re:why phase out DVI? by eobanb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then again there's HDMI 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, then for cables there's Standard, Standard with Ethernet, High Speed, plus converter cables to/from DVI, DisplayPort, VGA, and then of course there's HDCP...

      ...It's always going to be confusing to 90% of people no matter what.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    54. Re:why phase out DVI? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you can just buy a $5 adapter and conver the HDMI cable into one that plugs into a DVI connector, right? And you're not going to have an analog hole if you don't buy protected discs. Blurays are spectacular, but if you're that concerned about it you can either strip the protection or better stick with DVDs.

    55. Re:why phase out DVI? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Your CRT and your LCD with with VGA only are both already obsolete!

    56. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true... HDMI 1, HDMI 1.1, HDMI 1.3, HDMI 1.3B, high speed, etc etc.. and HDMI 1.4 iirc is the one that introduces HDMI with USB, HDMI with cat 5, HDMI with power (75watts max), etc.. all different cables.

      Now component was easy.. RCA with a green stripe, red stripe, and one with a blue. Match each one to the corrisponding RCA plug on the device, done. Same with VGA

    57. Re:why phase out DVI? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not quite, there are different revisions and you're not guaranteed to have everything working if you don't buy a recent enough cable. But, in practice they're not that expensive and anybody who needs the extra functionality is going to know what cable they need. In all cases though you'll at least get video and sound with any HDMI cable you buy.

    58. Re:why phase out DVI? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [DVI] gives me crystal-clear digital connection to my monitor, and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

      Trying to close the analog hole I guess. Using "smart" HDMI can more easily be used with DRMs. Coupled with machine you can not choose the OS of, and you might have quite annoying copy protection schemes.

      Nevermind that HDMI is electrically equivalent (adapters are under $3.

      Nevermind that DRM operates at different layer than the physical interface, which itself is different from the electrical interface.

      Nevermind that HDMI and DVI, by virtue of the above, support the . Note that this is independent of whether a particular display does.

      No, no, forget all that nonsense, the real question I have for your post is how you think anyone can try to close the analog hole by deprecating a digital interface?!

    59. Re:why phase out DVI? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the main problem with DisplayPort is that of adoption. Firewire was better than USB2.0 also, but it was more expensive, didn't support USB1.0 and didn't have the install base necessary to be particularly attractive to device manufacturers. I know that it is still in use, but I haven't used it in years and most things are moving to USB 3.0.

    60. Re:why phase out DVI? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah yes, but neither DVI graphics cards nor DVI monitors required HDCP so it would always downgrade but then refuse to play protected content. HDMI has always had HDCP, it is required. So they are getting rid of the last unencrypted connections, of course HDCP is broken but still. Now you will no longer get a picture on an unlicensed device without being a criminal under the DMCA.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    61. Re:why phase out DVI? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      They started a joint venture with Ubisoft?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    62. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. They can't sue you for everything you have if it sets your house on fire.

    63. Re:why phase out DVI? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      More like cheap adapters. HDMI is the same as DVI-D.

    64. Re:why phase out DVI? by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      Of your 3 sentences, two are true and one is false.

      I've never heard dual-link DVI called a pain in the ass before, and I've been using a 30" monitor for years. Please do go on...

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    65. Re:why phase out DVI? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Standard HDMI cables tend to be quite secure as long as they are made to the proper specifications (I did have one cheap $1.50 cable that seemed a bit wobbly but still worked ok). Now the mini-HDMI cables are a different story. I got a mini-hdmi to hook my Canon 5DmkII to a monitor and it drops out any time a move the camera even slightly and has to be wiggled back in place. Completely useless. Displayport seems similarly flawed with my losing the signal if I bump the connector even a little bit. DVI and VGA, while larger, have the advantage of screws to secure the connector in place so you don't have such problems.

    66. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know they make locking SATA connectors, right?

    67. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try plugging the HDMI cable into an HDMI slot. That is the USB port you are abusing there...

    68. Re:why phase out DVI? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think technically HDMI includes digital sound too. Which allow for better integration with a computer to TV and try to resolve the issue of way to many video options.

      VGA, DVI, Mini-DVI, Component, SVidio, TSR, Coax, USB...

      We have a bunch of ways to connect your device to a Montior/TV however lately because there are so many options most computers/devices costs and size are going toward supporting different ports. VGA and DVI are one of the bigger slot fillers, compared to the smaller HDMI, Which also does Audio too. The issue you are having with HDMI is probably more towards bad drivers then the actual connection itself (I am willing to guess most PC's with HDMI are configured to use VGA/DVI as the primary then there is some secondary code to use HDMI).

      There is discussion the HDMI will stop the analog hole however I don't see that as too relevant. Because even though the data transmission may be encrypted, over HDMI. For the most part the hacks to get the data is done on the PC or at least you can always hack your hardware (say unplug your monitor off your laptop and plug in the connection into a recorder. Because the data will need to be decrypted before it hits the display.Those wires that gives the electrical contact to those millions of pixels to show the display cannot be encrypted, and really isn't that far past human comprehension, to reverse engineer say an LCD display to record the data stream onto a storage device.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    69. Re:why phase out DVI? by sensationull · · Score: 1

      More expencive due to a chunk of the decode hardware being pushed on to each and every moniter rather than being included for effectivly no cost on the silicon of the GPU. Yes there is no fee to use it but the hardware is more segmented and more complex, thats why a DP to VGA connector or DP to dual DVI costs so much in comparison to the basic pinout mapping of the older connections adapters iw DVI-A to VGA.

    70. Re:why phase out DVI? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well the first iteration of HDMI was like the first round of Plug & Pray, because either it worked or you were screwed. My TV worked fine with a direct HDMI cable, via my reciever? No go, timing issues in the HDCP handshake. Which I of course only got to know about after I had bought the receiver, which was much later. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    71. Re:why phase out DVI? by swb · · Score: 1

      An interesting idea, and maybe there's some merit there, if anything from the rent-seeking behavior you might expect when the player, the media and the content are controlled by one company, but you could tell a different story.

      Sony as a hardware manufacturer has probably always been concerned about "default" media formats.

      Wikipedia says they "pressured" Philips to license Compact Cassette royalty-free, but who knows what they had to give up or horse-trade to get this. Sony and Philips jointly developed CDs which became a standard, but it took a long time for the music labels to get on board and broadly support the format enough for consumers to buy into it enough to purchase hardware.

      While they did well with audio, they lost badly with Betamax, a format never adopted widely by studios, costing them potentially millions of Betamax hardware sales and forcing them to license VHS from JVC.

      Owning content allows you to push your own hardware format, even if you license it to others -- it makes it faster to adoption and increases the turnaround time on hardware development investments since consumers are likely to adopt it faster if the equipment is available and the media is, too.

      Another complimentary spin on this is that I think Sony got involved in Hollywood during the 1980s -- remember when Japan was soaring and was buying everything they could? It's not hard to see their content ownership as driven at least as much by a desire to get into a profitable business at a time in history when buying stuff in dollars was very cheap for them to do.

    72. Re:why phase out DVI? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      That's pretty overkill, and probably only represents *AA's starting position in the bargaining. I'm sure they'd be happy with just detonating the explosive slave collar, if they can get the mandate for that piece of content-protection hardware added in the next round of copyright protection legislation.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    73. Re:why phase out DVI? by Masao-Kun · · Score: 2

      >HDMI is HDMI .. you plug it in and not worry about whether you are using the right mode / cable for your setup.

      Wait, do you mean 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2a, 1.3, 1.3a, 1.3b, or 1.4 HDMI? and type A, B, C, D, or E? Standard HDMI cable? Standard with Ethernet? Automotive? High Speed? High Speed with Ethernet?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
      http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cables.html

    74. Re:why phase out DVI? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      close...DVI-D and HDMI are exactly the same. Analog DVI is not.

    75. Re:why phase out DVI? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      It's like this for a reason though, a more featured cable costs more, but would not be supported on something like say a low end onkyo receiver, thus it wouldn't make sense to the consumer or manufacturer to eat the cost. Of course the high end offerings probably mostly take advantage of the more featured cable.

      There's more you can do w HDMI, but remember HDMI is a home theater standard (much much less flex than a computer in terms of connections and IO), so packaging video + ethernet into a single connector makes sense. Now imagine playing a video game in 1080p and downloading at the same time via your graphics card... ya no lol. Thus HDMI's extra features are just extra $ to the computer world where the DVI standard resides. Mini display / display ports are what would replace dvi if anything.

      Even so, DVI supports usb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface which means more importantly, it can do w/e hdmi does, there is no sense in running ethernet to your pc monitor though.

      Last but not least, DVI-I is for backwards compatibility, there is no reason to use it otherwise really. HDMI adapters for this functionality are more expensive.

      So, let's just say it's not going away, no matter what.

    76. Re:why phase out DVI? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Close...From Wikipedia:

      Standard HDMI Cable – up to 1080i and 720p
      Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet
      Automotive HDMI Cable
      High Speed HDMI Cable – 1080p, 4K, 3D and Deep Color
      High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet

    77. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pros to HDMI, as I see it, are:
      - It does audio as well as video. This makes it easier to connect to TVs and receivers and easier to monitors with integrated speakers.
      - It's smaller. You can thank Apple for convincing laptop manufacturers that people want the thinnest laptop possible. The thickness of VGA/DVI just doesn't fit in today's laptop.

      Also keep in mind that HDMI isn't the only tech out there to replace DVI. LightPeak (Thunderbolt) has a lot of advantages over both HDMI and DVI. If you can get a crystal-clear digital connection, audio, network and all your peripherals from one, more-compact plug, that's a big win. As simple as it may seem to us geeks, making sense of all the different plugs is difficult for some people...having a single plug that connects all types of devices will be a big win for non-nerds.

    78. Re:why phase out DVI? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Displayport does support 2560x1600. I hope it's not going away?

      Anyways, we can't keep every standard forever. Right now a high-end monitor will have a 2x HDMI, 2xDVI-D, a DisplayPort, VGA, and Component in. That is a lot of connectors!

    79. Re:why phase out DVI? by idontgno · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because DVI is also an analog interface? Or are you forgetting the VGA-compatible (analog) C1-C5 signals? Which are, amazingly not at all present in a HDMI connection.

      The digital portion of DVI is HDMI-equivalent. The analog portion of DVI is VGA-equivalent. The intent is to demolish VGA, including its equivalents. Hence, DVI has to be banished too.

      QED.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    80. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anrego · · Score: 2

      Sigh.. good to see there were some good lessons learnt :S

    81. Re:why phase out DVI? by xeoron · · Score: 1

      I would guess it is all about bandwidth speeds and volume with Intel backing closed standard Thunderbolt, while AMD is backing the more open standard DisplayPort1.2

    82. Re:why phase out DVI? by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      As others have said, all my SATA connectors lock into place. That you bought yours from Jose at the corner for 5 cents a piece is not a problem with SATA but with you.

    83. Re:why phase out DVI? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Using an unlicensed decryption program to decrypt a Blu-Ray DVD that you own, rented or borrowed in order to watch it on a non HDCP compliant system it is not piracy, no matter what the MPAA tells you. It may or may not violate the DMCA, but it is absolutely not piracy.

    84. Re:why phase out DVI? by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      So does this phase-out mean I won't be able to use the 4 VGA CRTs and 1 DVI LCD I have accumulated over the years?

      What a waste of perfectly functional equipment.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    85. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI simply never works without loads of custom setup/configuration/tears/sacrifices/death threaths...

      * One of the devices has no clue or fails to initialize the connection fast enough for the other device to stop negotiating. (Why do some devices only try establishing a connection right when you connect the wire anyways?) Result: No picture at all
      * One of the devices presents itself as something it isn't (I'm looking at you, downscaling "HD" projector), for some reason there is no way to make it just report as whatever it actually is. Result: The picture looks blurred
      * The display device does "overscan" on the HDMI port because someone thought that would be a fun idea to do on a digital signal
      * One of the devices loses HDMI sync and has to renegotiate and then crashes hard (Yes, that's you Canon 7D). Result: you have to pull the power plug to reset it.
      * Silly little connector breaks, falls out of the socket or is otherwise damaged. Result: No picture at all

      DVI simply always works - it's magic!
      * Plug it in, screen starts up in native resolution. Result: Happy pandas
      Only downside to DVI is that the plug is so durable and well fastened that if you trip over the wire it will probably tear the screen right out of your wall...

      DVI is not leaving until they conjure up something based on IP over RJ45 CAT cables that actually works.

    86. Re:why phase out DVI? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Those are not competing standards. Thunderbolt and DisplayPort can share a connector but are otherwise unrelated. The same port can provide DP1.2

    87. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not? They probably don't want your crap anyway. This way there's a better chance of just getting the insurance money instead of having to sell off all of your stuff.

    88. Re:why phase out DVI? by sjames · · Score: 2

      HDCP has been broken once and for all. The master key is out there.

    89. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the lemons! Combustible lemons! I've got my engineers working on inventing that right now.

      We're done here.

    90. Re:why phase out DVI? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How exactly do you send sound over DVI? You can with HDMI, so how are they identical?

    91. Re:why phase out DVI? by FirstNoel · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, You'll be able to use adapters...according to the article.

      Otherwise. yeah that would be a waste.

      --
      "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
    92. Re:why phase out DVI? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "So does this phase-out mean I won't be able to use the 4 VGA CRTs and 1 DVI LCD I have accumulated over the years?"

      No, they'll continue to work with the laptops you've accumulated over the years. For desktops, just buy a video card (used, if necessary) which supports VGA or DVI.

      Commenting on your name: Which 6502 computer are you using, which has VGA or DVI?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    93. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does DVI's lack of sound pins have to do with that guy's complaints about picture quality?

    94. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI requires the HDCP handshake. That handshake can fail.

    95. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say plugging in a CRT is a waste of perfectly good electricity. Why are you hoarding crap?

    96. Re:why phase out DVI? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      That's pretty overkill, and probably only represents *AA's starting position in the bargaining. I'm sure they'd be happy with just detonating the explosive slave collar, if they can get the mandate for that piece of content-protection hardware added in the next round of copyright protection legislation.

      Seems I read a story in the news yestiddy - MegaUpload cost them $500 Million in losses due to piracy. Really? How did they come to that figure? Wild guess? Actual accounting? Is anyone here just blindly accepting that figure? Don't talk to me about overkill when it comes to Big Media and Hollywood (Hollywood even - legendary for Hollywood Accounting and such phrases as, "Yes the picture did gross $784 Million, but after production, distribution, marketing, promotional activities, etc, etc, etc, we lost money on the picture, which is why you are not getting a 5% of Net, because there is none. By the way, are you available for the Sequel? It'll be collassal!") $500 Million .. sure. And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    97. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought SATA was hot-pluggable. Why do you have to shut down to fix it?

      dom

    98. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I agree with you on your individual points against the poster, DVI isn't digital only. DVI-D is, but most video cards still support DVI-A as well. It's pretty obvious to me that the announcement is concerning DVI-A and VGA ( because they're the same signals ).

      Perosnally I doubt this is going to happen for an industry as a whole, but you'll start seeing the domainat technology be display port. ( And to the people who are getting ready to cry "Apple!" no this is not an Apple only technology... it's an industry standard adopted by nearly everybody on the hardware block )

      I'm sure there will be plenty of budget video cards that will still support VGA or DVI-A. ( DVI-D will also get to continue to exist as an adapter to Displayport as is currently the case)

      But ultimately, I do indeed see this a primarily benefitting content groups like the MPAA.

      If Intel starts pushing Thunderbolt/Lightpeak then I might agree that this is done for progressing the state of the art. High resolution displays ( 4K for instance ) had a hard time being served by Dual DVI.

    99. Re:why phase out DVI? by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As best I can tell the problem is that they created a "smart" spec for the cable then didn't force manufacturers to only put them on "smart" devices, or didn't make a certain degree of smartness and sensible fallbacks part of the spec. Consequently, we've got a bunch of idiot devices that think they're smart and do all kinds of dumb things that a "dumb" connection like VGA wouldn't allow.

      Instead of "just work" we've got "just work IF your devices like each other and IF you turn them on in the correct order (note, not always the best or most intuitive order) and IF you have a shaman do the HDMI dance first." My guess is a bit tighter spec and better testing requirements tied to using the HDMI name/logo would have reduced these problem from nearly universal to occasional, at least.

      If nothing else the devices all ought to have a "stop trying to be smart and FUCKING DO EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO" mode. You think your source isn't 5.1? BULLSHIT, yes it is. You think you ought to defer to another device for audio out? NO, you're the goddamn audio receiver and I want you to NEVER do that. You went to sleep, woke back up, and now you think there's no capable audio device connected to your HDMI port and you'll continue to think that until I restart you? NO, just send the goddamn bits, because you're wrong.

      Actually, that's what the override mode should be called: "Just send the goddamn bits"

    100. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and also detect if you have a dog, then kick it too. They own the rights to your dogs bark too

    101. Re:why phase out DVI? by Reece400 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can already buy inexpensive HDMI / Display Port to VGA / DVI adaptors.

    102. Re:why phase out DVI? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      From your nic, I presume that you're not much up on the leading edge of computer hardware. In fact, I'll bet you have computers that have DB-25 ports.

      Perhaps you could hook up those monitors to your Hercules card?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    103. Re:why phase out DVI? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to imply that there was an evil genius behind the plot, or there was any malice aforethought, just that it has played out as an entrapment scenario, much like MicroSoft allowing (encouraging?) widespread piracy to drive adoption, then putting the screws to the legitimate channels when doing so would turn them into the richest corporation in the world.

      Well, maybe I'll deserve my troll point for this next line, but maybe there was some evil genius malice aforethought in Redmond....

    104. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The HDMI variants 1.2, 1.3, 1.4... cause the same kind of failures that the A,D,I issues would for a novice. I'm very experienced with video, and managed to confuse myself for a while when my 3D projector wouldn't work with my HDMI 1.2 receiver.

    105. Re:why phase out DVI? by idontgno · · Score: 2

      And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.

      I'm skeptical of this claim. You didn't call me an "eeeediot".

      Yeah, "overkill" isn't strictly the right word. The *AA takes an Orkish perspective on overkill.

      I'm just saying that burning down a house may imperil the ability of other well-tamed media consumers in that household to properly and subserviently pay for and consume media. So the slave collar is a more nuanced and somewhat less damaging approach. The only thing it lacks is the unthinking terror that accompanies indiscriminate mass reprisals, which is valuable in of itself.

      So both approaches may be called for, depending on whim, time of day, phase of moon, output of random number generator, or extensive cost/benefit analysis.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    106. Re:why phase out DVI? by Krau+Ming · · Score: 2

      don't forget it's also just another forced upgrade cycle for people holding on to their electronics for more than 5 years.

    107. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      I am still using EGA, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    108. Re:why phase out DVI? by Nationless · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but what about the audio signal? Does that alter the available video bandwidth?

    109. Re:why phase out DVI? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Typically any cable you get with a monitor 1920x1200 or smaller is missing the center six pins, making it single link only.

    110. Re:why phase out DVI? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Not ALL DVI ports have the analog portion. Note that HDMI has only HALF the wiring that DVI does (and there are some DVI ports that omit half of the digital lines). HDMI is a smaller connector than DVI, but it lacks the locking screws. At the computer level HDMI and DVI are compatible and cables to go from one to the other are common. Many PC motherboards now have both connectors on them (and they are 'shared' in that only one or the other can be used at the same time). HDMI allows sending audio over the same cable, DVI does not. It makes sense to replace DVI with HDMI for computers, and the available adapters will insure that such a transition will go smoothly.

            As for how well HDMI works with PC's, well my Vizio LCD TV has 4 HDMI ports. The first three work very well and 'lock on' to anything that is connected to them. The fourth one (which has it's own assigned analog audio input jacks for some reason) often fails to lock on to anything connected to it giving 'no signal' on screen. Unless I carefully time the switch to this port and turning on the connected device that's all I get. Also once I switch off this port to another input I can't go back without turning everything off and going though the mess again. So as far as I'm concerned that TV only has three HDMI inputs.

    111. Re:why phase out DVI? by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

      HDMI cords are sold separately.

    112. Re:why phase out DVI? by antdude · · Score: 1

      I still use VGA, with DVI adapters, because of my KVMs from Y2K. Yes, they are blurrier compared to DVI and HDMI but they work. If I get DVI or HDMI, then I will have to replace KVMs and cables. They're not cheap when I last checked!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    113. Re:why phase out DVI? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Because it's support for high resolutions (read, anything over 1920x1080) is poor, and it's support for very high resolutions (read, anything over 2560x1600) is non-existant. Also, it's support for higher than 8-bit colour is non-existant. Also, you can't daisy chain monitors on it.

      DisplayPort supports up to 3840x2160 in 30 bit colour at 60Hz in it's current incarnation, it also has versioning built into the spec, so that bandwidth can be increased without changing display standard. It also supports connecting up to 4 monitors at once (as long as the combined 4 monitors don't use more bandwidth than that).

      Finally, DisplayPort's signal is much closer to what monitors actually want to consume, so much so that it can be used as an internal link in a laptop resulting in less electronics in the monitor or laptop, and hopefully cheaper prices.

      If you're wondering why you care about such high resolutions – they key is in the iPhone 4 – retina displays for laptops and desktops are coming soon, that I'm sure of.

    114. Re:why phase out DVI? by poltsy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Audio data is superimposed in a vertical blanking interval of video data. It's hilarious really.

    115. Re:why phase out DVI? by flanders123 · · Score: 1

      it gives me crystal-clear digital connection to my monitor, and unlike HDMI, it works every time without fail.

      I have a pile of some serial ports and ISA slots that I'd like to sell. Interested?

    116. Re:why phase out DVI? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Yes! I want the engineer who designed the SATA connector bolted tied down to a table with old SCSI one cables - the heavy, strong kind.

      Then I want to take 10 SATA connectors and slowly, slowly push them up his fingernails until he passes out.

      Death will be too kind to him.

      Miserable little things.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    117. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with quality of the technology. It's all about making the customer pay for crap they don't need. So they phase out DVI, forcing everybody to replace their monitors when they upgrade their computers. My new video cards didn't have VGA ports - they only had DVI. Fortunately I was buying new monitors anyway, but anyone who had VGA monitors would have been forced to replace them or buy adapters when they swapped out their video cards. Similar things have been going on for years - look at USB. The connector keeps changing even though the technology hasn't. It's still 4 pins - and most devices don't ship with a cable anymore, you have to buy it separately. The cable you had for your old device won't plug into your new one, forcing you to buy another cable. Headlights are another thing. You used to go to your local auto supply store and buy the same headlight for every car on the road for about $3. Nowadays if your headlight gets smashed, your out hundreds because every car on the road has a different headlight design - even for the same model of car of a different year. Yes - the manufacturing cost of making 2 million different headlight designs is higher, but I bet the price the customer pays is grossly inflated compared to the cost of manufacturing the part. What does a mold cost for a new headlight design? Probably not much more than the cost of a headlight. One person gets in an accident and the manufacturer has recouped their cost. I imagine that eventually hardware manufacturers will eventually do away with IEEE standards altogether. You won't be able to upgrade hardware without replacing the entire computer, or paying a ridiculous cost for a replacement part. When your hard drive fails it won't be a matter of buying any new SATA drive, you'll have to specifically buy a 2015 Dell Thingamagic II 4TB hard drive that will cost $1000 because the connector and physical geometry of the hard drive will change every year and be different from one model of computer to another.

    118. Re:why phase out DVI? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Plus it doesn't require the user to figure out which of several varients they need (A, D, I, single/dual link?) .. just plug the thing in and don't think about it.

      Right, it's not like there are four different bloody connectors for HDMI or anything. Or five different cable types.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    119. Re:why phase out DVI? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      To make you buy new things. Oh, your monitor supports DVI, but that new gamma-ray-disc-player doesn't? Buy a new monitor!

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    120. Re:why phase out DVI? by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

      Mini DisplayPort is not higher bandwidth than DVI. Mini DP has perhaps 10-15% better (usable) bandwidth than single-link DVI. But dual-link DVI has 100% better bandwidth than single-link DVI.

      How is it that I'm running a 30" Cinema Display from a mini display port video card then? MDP supports dual link, and the MDP port works with thunderbolt, which can run TWO daisy chained 30" screens.

      Have you ever used a MDP plug? They fit more securely than DVI does without screws. Nobody who plugs and unplugs a DVI port every day bothers to use the screws, so what's the point?

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    121. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, you'll have to actually start using your furnace to heat your house!

      LCDs are nice for space and screen size, but I do miss the heat my old 21" CRTs used to generate. Now I'm always cold in the office...

    122. Re:why phase out DVI? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure where you get that. The data stream for DisplayPort is not that much more complicated than HDMI. The only real difference is that you have to have a little more advanced logic to check the packet type before you shove the data into the monitor's frame buffer. And ideally, you should do something with some of the other packet types, like providing extra ports, but that's entirely optional. It certainly is not the case that the monitor is doing anything that could be done in the GPU. In all cases, the monitor has to decode the protocol and buffer it, then read that buffer back as it paints the screen. Digital video is not like analog video to a CRT where you could basically let the signal drive the tube....

      The DVI-A to VGA adapters cost nothing because they're nothing more than a handful of wires. Of course any adapter that contains electronics is going to cost more than a wire. If you need an HDMI to VGA adapter, that's going to cost you a lot more than a cable, too (about $40—$10 more than a DP to VGA adapter, BTW). It has nothing to do with DP being too complex and everything to do with the fact that active electronics are required to do the job. That and the fact that there are not enough purchasers to drive prices down through economies of scale.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    123. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI devices may be required to accept HDCP signals but HDMI devices work just fine with an unencrypted signal.

    124. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because DVI is both analog and digital?

    125. Re:why phase out DVI? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't. They are physically the same, but electronically different. HDMI devices are just backwards compatible and capable of running in both modes.

    126. Re:why phase out DVI? by Golddess · · Score: 2

      and sets your house on fire.

      Just don't accept any unsolicited packages containing lemons. ;)

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    127. Re:why phase out DVI? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      HDMI *IS* DVI on a different connector.

      All they're really phasing out is the physical port; you can still use a passive HDMI to DVI adapter or cable and use your DVI equipment just fine.

    128. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puts me in mind of the wonderful move to SATA connectors .. you know, those damn things which come loose and you have to shut down, open cabinet and push back in place?

      Which one is that? I don't have a connector like that on my motherboard. Only SATA ports.

      HDMI impresses me as another connector which is weak.

      You mean the connector that actually stays more firmly in place than VGA or DVI with no screws on?

      Seems like you're just constantly imagining things here!

    129. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stuff the data in the unused hblank interval, exactly like HDMI does. Next question?

    130. Re:why phase out DVI? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Not to mention HDCP has been completely cracked wide open anyway, and thus is absolutely useless.

    131. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't had any trouble myself with SATA at all. It's certainly a heck of a lot friendlier to route through a case and is a lot less likely to block channels of air flow.

    132. Re:why phase out DVI? by dredwerker · · Score: 1

      I am still using EGA, you insensitive clod!

      I am still using EGA, you insensitive clod!

      ega I am still using cga - get off my lawn :)

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    133. Re:why phase out DVI? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Huh, I thought your karma was so bad you weren't allowed to post anymore.

      No, you won't have to throw it away, these ports simply won't appear on new equipment. Being able to connect to VGA is still useful for old projectors, but it's no longer sufficiently important to waste board space on it. I bought a mini DisplayPort to VGA adaptor for £5 including delivery. It contains a set of three 10-bit DACs to generate the VGA signal and works well. I take it with me when I'm going to give presentations, but the rest of the time my laptop is quite happy without VGA.

      I suppose that if your existing computer dies and you can afford a new computer, but can't afford a £5 adaptor then you may have to throw them away...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    134. Re:why phase out DVI? by bigkahunah · · Score: 1

      Pirates don't even need the analog hole. Both HD-DVD and blu-ray have been cracked enough to just decrypt the disc.

      HD-DVD? Is this 2008?

    135. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can with DVI too, so how are they not identical?

    136. Re:why phase out DVI? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      thats why a DP to VGA connector or DP to dual DVI costs so much in comparison to the basic pinout mapping of the older connections adapters iw DVI-A to VGA

      I paid £5 for my miniDP to VGA adaptor. Including delivery. From China. The same supplier also makes ones with VGA, DVI, and HDMI outputs for under £10, although some reviews said they were less reliable than the single-output ones.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    137. Re:why phase out DVI? by OverZealous.com · · Score: 1

      You mean like this:

      http://www.smarthome.com/81271/HDMI-Cable-with-Secure-Connection-Screw-in-Fastener-15-Feet/p.aspx

      This is somewhat common in the A/V industry, especially on projectors. HDMI has gotten better, though, and don't fall out quite as easily. Still, DVI is better for overhead or hanging installation than HDMI.

    138. Re:why phase out DVI? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Pirates don't even need to crack HD-DVD or blu-ray. Someone who only understands English can still photocopy a document in Russian and the resulting copy will still be readable by those who can read Russian. Heck some pirate DVDs I've seen still have the anti-piracy clips at the start!

      And the protections in those discs are also (mainly?) to create artificial barriers to trade and for market segmentisation. But these often hurt the actual customers - someone I know had to buy another blu-ray player from a different country just to play his _legitimately_purchased_ blurays.

      --
    139. Re:why phase out DVI? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's mostly because of 2 reasons. First, the connectors are big, which makes them bad for skinny portable devices. Second, there's been a general move away from interfaces with pins, partially because they're too easy to damage.

      Of course, phasing out VGA and DVI are not going to happen on the proposed timetable. There are too many legacy devices. The first step is to get manufacturers to adopt a standard instead of being split between HDMI, DP, mini DP, and Thunderbolt. Then just wait while old legacy devices get replaced. We don't even have a standard yet.

    140. Re:why phase out DVI? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      DVI and HDMI are signal compatible. You're going to get equally "crystal clear" connection with either one.

      I'm more pissed about connector itself, HDMI has no screws to place it firmly in, and I have 2 monitors with HDMI instead of DVI. A couple of times I was moving the monitors around while they were on (new tables, testing ergonomics of various setups), cables popped out. Never had the same problem with DVI on my older monitor. I really want those screws.

    141. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the physical specification has requirements for clearance and other affordances around the port itself, in which the licensing body can sue any manufacturer who violates it.

    142. Re:why phase out DVI? by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      Puts me in mind of the wonderful move to SATA connectors

      The motherboard I purchased recently came with a few SATA cables with locking connectors. Other than cost, there's no good reason all SATA cables aren't like this...

    143. Re:why phase out DVI? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      I admin dozens of servers, including a JBOD backups server (running Linux, of course!) with a dozen large SATA hard disks in it. Never once can I recall having problems with connectors coming loose. On the other hand, having a dozen drives in a single server makes me truly appreciate the thin, lightweight connectors - can you imagine the spaghetti feed of ribbon-cable nightmare that would be in there with a dozen Parallel ATA drives?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    144. Re:why phase out DVI? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      What's weird about Firewire/1394 is almost every motherboard above bottom 10% or so has it, yet few other devices seem to except some fraction of video cameras.
            Display is newer, but finding monitors that support is getting easier (about 1/4 to 1/3 online, though bricks and mortar stores don't have many).

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    145. Re:why phase out DVI? by afidel · · Score: 1

      DAC's aren't exactly free, especially decent ones capable of handling WUXGA and above at 60+ Hz. By removing the need for the DAC they are reducing cost because the vast, vast majority of displays are digital.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    146. Re:why phase out DVI? by Script_God · · Score: 1

      > HDMI allows sending audio over the same cable, DVI does not.

      Actually, you can get audio out of a DVI port on a video card. I have a GTX570, with one of its DVI ports connected to an HDMI port on my TV with a DVI to HDMI cable, and audio routes over that cable just fine. I was actually surprised the first time it happened, for I thought the same as you.

    147. Re:why phase out DVI? by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

      From your nic, I presume that you're not much up on the leading edge of computer hardware.

      You mean he has an ancient ISA one with 10Base2 BNC connectors or something like that?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    148. Re:why phase out DVI? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's not planned obsolescence. It's forced obsolescence.

    149. Re:why phase out DVI? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Because the Picture Quality and the Gamut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut of CRT is STILL way better when compared to shitty* looking LCD, LED, OLED, DLP, etc which is extremely sensitive to your viewing angle.

      Do you even _know_ what a _reference_ tube is?
      http://www.glennchan.info/broadcast-monitors/manufacturers/listing.htm

      * LCD, LED are "good enough" -- thin, lightweight, and low power. The trade-off is crap color consistency.

    150. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I foresee a black market of 'defective' CPUs where the House Catch Fire instruction set is replaced by the similarly named Hover Cat Finder instruction set. It will apprently respond to the same instructions as the RIAA backed variant, but it will instead find lolcats.

    151. Re:why phase out DVI? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I get a positive HDCP-DVI lock on my Dell 2407, it plays DVDs at full resolution and Blu-rays from a USB connected optical drive just fine.

      --
      Good-bye
    152. Re:why phase out DVI? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You don't need to buy DVI. Just because you don't like it should be no reason to make everyone else give it up. 5 years is an amazingly short time to phase out something like this. It means dumping your PC monitors before they've worn out (ya I know, younger people have never seen anything "worn out" before throwing it away). This will be a big expense to corporations for sure; they may replace computers every 5 years (on average, not max) but they don't replace all the peripherals that fast or dump them all in the trash.

    153. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to close the analog hole I guess. Using "smart" HDMI can more easily be used with DRMs. Coupled with machine you can not choose the OS of, and you might have quite annoying copy protection schemes.

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      They can try to set my house on fire..it's made of asbestos....

    154. Re:why phase out DVI? by McGuirk · · Score: 1

      Because all technology that's 4 years old is utterly useless, right?

    155. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen a video card with analog DVI support in years. There really is no reason to keep the larger form factor DVI plug over HDMI. In this case, smaller is better.

    156. Re:why phase out DVI? by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Is the analog hole even a significant factor? I got the impression everyone just cracks the digital encryption. I don't think I've ever seen a video that was pirated from a VGA connection.

      I suspect is this is a cost saving measure. The hardware to produce the VGA signal costs something, and video card manufacturers are probably tired of paying for it.

      --
      Visit the
    157. Re:why phase out DVI? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Because DVI isn't being updated. It's successor is DisplayPort.

    158. Re:why phase out DVI? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The REASON it has it own audio assigned jacks is because audio doesnt always have to come from HDMI. I wont buy a HDMI monitor/TV without the ability to pipe in a separate audio stream to at least one HDMI port.

      --
      Good-bye
    159. Re:why phase out DVI? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Firewire is essentially just serial SCSI. SCSI for some bizarre reason has always lost out on the PC for inferior solutions, but was more widely accepted elsewhere (macs, high end workstations). Firewire just seems to be on the same path, ignored and reinvented by the PC and its ad-hoc design.

    160. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://craphound.com/images/ifurapirate.jpeg

    161. Re:why phase out DVI? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      DisplayPort doesn't require HDCP any more than DVI does.

    162. Re:why phase out DVI? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      So funny its sad but true :-/

    163. Re:why phase out DVI? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      HDMI is only HDMI if you're hooking the thing up to a fairly crappy TV. Otherwise there are lots of different standards.

      DisplayPort, on the other hand, makes a lot more sense than any of them.

    164. Re:why phase out DVI? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Quoting myself. This time, please pay attention to the area that I have emphasized.

      No technical reason you couldn't put securing screws around an HDMI connector, is what I mean.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    165. Re:why phase out DVI? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And of course all those new monitors are going to be trashed and put into landfills. Or if lucky they'll be part of a "green" program and shipped at massive expense to China where peasants will smash them into tiny bits before putting them in landfills. Even if the monitor was bought just this very year. This rampant consumerism in the US is absolutely insane, what happened to all the recycle movements? Everything's been turned into a use-and-dispose attitude even by people hypocritically wearing "Go Green" tee shirts.

    166. Re:why phase out DVI? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Why not have both? Sure, put a small HDMI on a tablet but what does that have to do with a tower PC?

    167. Re:why phase out DVI? by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      This is why I "backup" the DVDs I own removing the PUOPs, and the other noted annoyances...

    168. Re:why phase out DVI? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      But if you use a gold connector those zeros and ones will have better audio qualities.

    169. Re:why phase out DVI? by bigkahunah · · Score: 1

      Because HD-DVD hasn't been relevant since 2008. Shall we discuss laserdiscs as well?

    170. Re:why phase out DVI? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      I was watching a pirated copy of Backdraft, and began thinking, "Damn, that fire looks soooo real!"

    171. Re:why phase out DVI? by Chemisor · · Score: 2

      > monitor standard that sets your house on fire

      Funny, my printer port already has that feature.

    172. Re:why phase out DVI? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither HDMI graphics cards nor HDMI monitors require HDCP. HDCP is not required on HDMI.

      I ran HDMI from my DirecTV receiver to my Dell display (DVI input) for years. No HDCP required nor used (and the display didn't support it!).

      There is nothing in the system that requires HDCP except the signal transmitting device. After the HDMI connection is set up, the transmitter knows whether it has active HDCP or not. The transmitter may then refuse to transmit video if the video it is to send is marked as not transportable over digital connections that don't use HDCP. For example an Xbox 360 will play games but not media content over a non-HDCP HDMI connection. A PS3 won't show anything at all over HDMI if there is no HDCP.

      There is absolutely nothing enforced by the monitor vis-a-vis HDCP. If the sender sends video and monitor understands the format and encryption it displays it. It is completely up to the sender to decide what should and should not be displayed.

      The rules for sending content over DVI are exactly the same as those over HDMI. If the content is marked as not showable over non-encrypted digital connections it cannot be shown over any non-encrypted digital connections, whether HDMI, DVI, MiniDP, etc.

      Would it be too big an imposition to become informed about the facts before projecting hate?

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    173. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have cheap sata connectors, either the cable XOR the connector.

      higher quality single port sata cables have a metal clip that snaps in.

      Hell, even mid range cables are a very tight fit and do not even need the clip.

      stop buying junk.

    174. Re:why phase out DVI? by guttentag · · Score: 1

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      That's ridiculous. How could they seize and sell your house for profit if they burn it down? Unless the insurance money they could get for burning your house down is worth more than what they could actually sell it for in the current housing market... I think you might be on to something here.

    175. Re:why phase out DVI? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I just recently got the Dell U2711...the 27" version of the 30" one you posted about.

      All I can say is..."WOW"....

      Sadly, it is actually very difficult to find decent computer monitors out there...with any resolution above HDTV...

      I had to really shop around and you have to pay a little extra to get something good, but man...this one was worth every penny!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    176. Re:why phase out DVI? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      We're not arguing the inherent functional superiority of HDMI over DVI. We're discussing why DVI is being phased out. And that "why" is DVI-A. DVI, incorporating the fully-sanctioned and properly-specified analog portion of the standard, includes provisions for the analog hole. If you take that away, you're left with a bulky and arguably inferior implementation of digital video; something completely redundant with HDMI.

      If you're blocking DVI-A and DVI-D is obsoleted by HDMI, there's no reason to support DVI at all.

      As to the reliability issues with HDMI, yeah, I've noticed that too with a few combinations of gear (and individual ports). However, I don't think the media pigopolists care. As long as you've paid for their crap, they don't care that you don't have a reliable way to connect the hardware to view it, as long as you absolutely can't violate their precious intellectual property rights.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    177. Re:why phase out DVI? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      So does this phase-out mean I won't be able to use the 4 VGA CRTs [...]?

      What a waste of perfectly functional equipment.

      What a waste of money.

      12c a kwh on average in the US.
      about 30watts over an LCD.
      = .12 * 8 hours a day * 30 * 365 / 1000 = $10 a year.

      You can get a used LCD for $30 on craiglist no problem. By 2015 you would have broken even and had a nicer monitor by throwing away the CRTs.

    178. Re:why phase out DVI? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      My understanding is adapters that come with newer ATI and nVidia cards are DVI with an extra audio channel so they can hook to HDMI. It is possible to get adapters that just send DVI like most older adapters and these will not broadcast sound even if you hook them to newer cards.

    179. Re:why phase out DVI? by PylonHead · · Score: 1

      You have color graphics? I'm still using my monochrome 80 column card...

      --
      # (/.);;
      - : float -> float -> float =
    180. Re:why phase out DVI? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's possible to carry audio over DVI too... I have several devices which do this.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    181. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Latitude E-series laptop (including the one I'm typing this on) has a DisplayPort output, which has cheap converter dongles to DVI-foo and HDMI, as well as a VGA port. Considering how many businesses buy from Dell, it'll be around for a while.

    182. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      DVI has optional analog pins, yes. HDMI doesn't, yes. But DisplayPort, which aims to replace both of them in PCs, sort of does.

      DisplayPort itself doesn't do VGA, but they defined how to convert DP to VGA in the DP spec itself, and as a result, unpowered (well, bus-powered) active converters are cheap. You can buy a DP to VGA adapter from Monoprice for $13.

      As such, there's no real need to maintain the analog connector in laptops. The need for VGA on a laptop is rare (less rare than desktops, but still rare), so it's not really asking to much to require a cheap and tiny adapter to connect your DP laptop to a VGA projector on the rare occasion you need to do so.

      HDMI to VGA, on the other hand, requires powered active converters, which cost several times more, and require external power sources. Basically instead of a simple dongle, HDMI to VGA requires a converter box with an external power supply. So HDMI can't really replace DVI, but DP can.

    183. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it was a legitimate problem with early SATA connectors. Manufacturers have since redesigned the connectors so that they don't suffer from this problem; these days, you can feel the SATA connector snapping into place when you plug it in. That wasn't true when they first came out, regardless of price.

    184. Re:why phase out DVI? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You don't even need a pirate. Just go online and you can get splitters from China or Taiwan that will allow you to view the stream without needing a HDCP compliant endpoint.

      I've seen them in action. HDCP player and non-HDCP viewer.

      HDCP only works as long as 100% of all manufacturers cooperate...... It's not 100%.

    185. Re:why phase out DVI? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      I love SATA connectors. They're small enough that they don't take up half the motherboard, they only go in one way (can't jam them in like IDE), and they connect and disconnect easily.

      IDE it was easy to stick it in half way and have some pins with lose connections, and then when you pull them out, you have to yank the actual cable until your hand goes flying back against the pointy end of your graphics card or computer case.

      As others have mentioned, when you don't get the super cheap ones, they have connectors that snap them into place. That said, I've never had a SATA cable - even without the locks - come loose while the computer was running, and I wasn't messing with it. That's with several hard drives and optical drives hooked up.

    186. Re:why phase out DVI? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      First generation SATA didn't have the little metal clip that later versions have.

      I was a late adopter, and learned this lesson the hard way when I kept having to shut down my server because the cables would come loose. I had six SATA drives in there, so it happened way too often. Newer cables with the clips solved the problem.

      Still, even with the clip I don't trust SATA to stay in place as well as the ol' 40 pin connectors did, although I imagine there's a lot less connection issues (i.e. having ro reseat the cable for no apparent reason) that PATA had.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    187. Re:why phase out DVI? by Creepy · · Score: 4, Informative

      DisplayPort is not just an industry standard, it is a royalty free standard, but HDMI seems to be winning - the only device I've seen with DisplayPort is my 2+ year old HP laptop and I have about 18 devices with HDMI in my household (heck, our cellphones even have it).

    188. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So HDMI carries analog just like DVI-I does?

    189. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      And yet, I've had multiple HDMI cables go bad for connector issues, and have had those bad cables destroy the HDMI port on equipment by pushing the socket pins out of position...

      My XBox 360's HDMI port was destroyed by a bad HDMI cable. Fun.

      DisplayPort seems to address many of the issues with the HDMI connector. DP's connector is more obviously directional about which way to plug it in, supports locking the cable in (see the pop-up hooks here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Displayport-cable.jpg), and the connector/sockets seem more robust.

    190. Re:why phase out DVI? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's what the override mode should be called: "Just send the goddamn bits"

      With a little retraining, here's your pitch man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    191. Re:why phase out DVI? by clodney · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should use old video adapters to connect to old displays?

    192. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Most new laptops and displays seem to have DisplayPort, and not just from Apple (my Dell display and my buddy's Dell laptop both do), there are more than a few videocards on the market that only support DisplayPort, so it's getting reasonably mainstream. Intel's focus on DP as the basis for Thunderbolt/Lightpeak will undoubtedly help adoption.

    193. Re:why phase out DVI? by Bensam123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only DVI natively converts to VGA as it's built into the spec (four pins on the connector). HDMI and DP do not have pins for that. In order to convert from HDMI/DP to VGA you need a $60-70 converter, not a $10 adapter like you can use with DVI.

    194. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It's not the case for HDMI, but luckily, DisplayPort to HDMI adapters are very tiny and cheap. They're bus-powered (so no power brick), they're cheap ($13 on monoprice for the cheapest), they're small...

      Stick this thing on the end of any VGA cable to magically turn your VGA device into a DisplayPort device:

      http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042801&p_id=5135&seq=1&format=2

      Yeah, it's not ideal that you're forced to buy this adapter to use an old monitor with a new laptop, but it's not exactly an onerous burden.

    195. Re:why phase out DVI? by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

      SATA CAN be hotpluggable, but is not required to be. That said, most hosts support it, though only in AHCI mode, not emulation mode. From the systems I've seen in the field, about half are using IDE emulation mode, either because the OS doesn't natively support it and the installer did not spend time looking for drivers, or because it is a "fleet" computer where the BIOS was configured in a "safe" mode.

    196. Re:why phase out DVI? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      just buy a video card

      Well, until Sony and Comcast buy Nvidia and ATI.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    197. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing, then, that DisplayPort is cheaper than HDMI both in terms of licensing costs, and adapters.

    198. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      If your computer supports DisplayPort, and your KVM only supports VGA, then slap one of these on the end of your VGA cable:

      http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042801&p_id=5135&seq=1&format=2

    199. Re:why phase out DVI? by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Adapters? I wuv adapters!

      How much do they cost? I know a bunch of clients and businesses that will be utterly delighted that their investment in hundreds of LCD monitors is going to be destroyed without the additional purchase of hundreds of adapters to work with new computers they purchase. It's not like they are going to spend the money to buy all new monitors.

      Business does not upgrade unless it absolutely has to do so (in my experience) and will attempt to retain the investment in every single piece of hardware they have. Take a guess why XP is till being used damn near everywhere in so many businesses? No reason to upgrade that justifies the cost of the licensing and retraining. I have a ton of LCD monitors that support DVI, but are connected with VGA simply because the thin/thick clients don't have DVI connectors.

      If we have not even switched over to DVI completely in business yet, what makes them think they can switch us to HDMI/Display Port? There has to be millions of perfectly good LCD monitors out there with DVI connectors capable of high resolutions that can be in service for at least another 5-10 years from today.

      VGA is understandable, but why on Earth get rid of DVI just yet?

      I just hope they are not dicks and there is a $100-$200 Display Port monitor out there when they do. It's not like those monitors are plentiful today on the market.

    200. Re:why phase out DVI? by boskone · · Score: 1

      probably arcnet or token ring while we're at it

    201. Re:why phase out DVI? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Does the content fully exploit the full potential of available output devices? If yes, then it is still "relevant" regardless of how "old" it is.

      If laserdisc did 1080p, it would still be relevant as well.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    202. Re:why phase out DVI? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Somehow I suspect that this "adapter" will cost more than an entire video card.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    203. Re:why phase out DVI? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Good.

      The advantage of CRTs is they can display any resolution including 640x480 or 320x240, which is useful when emulating old Nintendo, Sega, PS1, Commodore, or Atari games. LCDs merely interpolate those resolutions upto 1920x1024, and it looks like crap (because it's not a precise fit).

      I still use my old analog TVs too. With the new digital tuner boxes the government gave me for cheap, they look as good as DVD. :-)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    204. Re:why phase out DVI? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I can remember managing servers with several non-hot-swap SCSI-2 drives with the wide 50 pin ribbon cables. It was a real challenge to route those things so they remained secure and didn't block airflow-- not to mention ensuring that the chain wasn't longer than spec.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    205. Re:why phase out DVI? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      HDMI to DVI adapters are not that expensive. You buy a couple hundred at a time, it might not be so bad.

      Display Port is a totally different story and not inexpensive at all.

      Low end is $20-$30 for Passive Single Link. High end can be over $100 for Active Dual Link. Depends on what you need to do with it.

      Try multiplying that a couple dozen times to retain your investment in a bunch of dual display setups in some companies. Not that much fun.

      In my experience HDMI is not reliable for shit. I have a very high end laptop that has completely variable performance on the HDMI connector to various TV displays and monitors. I am not the only one either.

      Since HDMI is going to be questionable, that really leaves you with Display Port since DVI works very well. Not cheap.

    206. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do ! :) I even have TWO hubs with BNC 10B2 to go, very reliable even today

    207. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But that is only true for DVI-I, DVI-D ports don't produce the analogue signal at all.

    208. Re:why phase out DVI? by antdude · · Score: 1

      What is DisplayPort? I have not heard of that one before. Yeah, my old KVMs only does VGA and PS/2. They're old Belkin OmniCubes. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    209. Re:why phase out DVI? by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1

      Now imagine playing a video game in 1080p and downloading at the same time via your graphics card... ya no lol.

      You think a graphics card is really going to notice the amount of bandwidth your ISP can provide? Or the amount processing that an ethernet card can do?
      Maybe if you have fibre, but otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean.

    210. Re:why phase out DVI? by compgenius3 · · Score: 1

      Thank god someone has a voice of reason in here. Too bad it's AC

      --
      Sexual intercourse is kicking death in the ass while singing. ~Charles Bukowski
    211. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always use CRTs to warm your feet on if nothing else. :)
      Or go out and buy up all the VGA ported video cards for when your current ones fail. Eventually systems that support those specs would become like thin clients are today - light on cpu, memory, and storage - but still good on a network.

    212. Re:why phase out DVI? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      It takes up more space to connect a dual link DVI. For video cards, this could mean less connections for large monitors... though it's not a terribly huge problem.

    213. Re:why phase out DVI? by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.

      Hey! I thought your name was Ren :)

    214. Re:why phase out DVI? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2

      The problem with that is while HDMI to DVI adapters exist, the DVI portion of that does not include analog connectors, which means you will not be able to stack a DVI to VGA adapter on top of that. I've actually tried this - they just don't fit.

      Even the connectors that 'convert' HDMI to VGA can't convert digital to analog. Taken from Amazon a comment sums this up nicely,

      "What everyone needs to understand here is that you need to research before you buy. This product is not meant to take a digitanl signal and allow you to connect to an analog display, or vica versa. This cable does not do a digital to analog, or analog to digital, converion. Most HDMI devices are going to be digital, while most VGA devices are going to be analog. You cannot connect the two with a cable. You have to actually convert the signal. This cable is meant for the very few devices that can actually output analog from the HDMI connector. This is very rare and you should pretty much always assume your HDMI connection cannot support analog, and your VGA connection cannot support digital.

      Do some research on your devices. The manual should tell you what is supported on each connector." http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-VGA-HD15-Male-Cable/dp/B001OLCHJ6

      What's needed is a Video Converter, such as this one: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Startech-HDMI2VGA-HDMI-to-VGA-Video-Converter-with-Audio/14860180

      As you can see, you're going to spend about $100-$150 for the convenience, and no doubt these devices do not work on copy protected material without down sampling or failing outright. It's probably illegal if it did.

    215. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put two good CRTs next to two good LCDs and you may just notice why some people like CRTs and prefer to pay a bit more.
      This is not like Monster Cables. This is something you should be able to see if you are not color blind.

    216. Re:why phase out DVI? by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      This is why all of my photography work is done on my ancient 24" Sun monitor. Try finding a video card that will support one of those beasts without an adapter.

      Luckily, my hoarding of Sun VGA adapters started a long time ago.

    217. Re:why phase out DVI? by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      HDMI is just a smaller connector for DVI it just has some extra pin-out options for Audio, CEC, and Ethernet built-in but the video signal is still the same as DVI even supports the same DRM (HDCP)

    218. Re:why phase out DVI? by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      That's already in place for xbox the 360 psus have had the ability to set house on fire for years now.

    219. Re:why phase out DVI? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Yes, there's really been a backslide in displays in the last few years, both on the desktop and laptops, towards HDTV resolutions.

      I wonder what you were using before? I am using the 3008WFP, which is the predecessor to the one I posted, and wonder if the new one is much better? I was a little disappointed they didn't switch to LED backlight, since the heat from two of these in my office is considerable. But one is getting flaky and might need replacement.

    220. Re:why phase out DVI? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Commenting on your name: Which 6502 computer are you using, which has VGA or DVI?

      Only one that comes to mind would be the Apple IIGS. Granted, it was a 65C816, but that is part of the 6502 family, and there was a third party VGA adapter for it.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    221. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It's the standard that replaced (or is supposed to replace) DVI (or HDMI) on PCs:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

      It can be found on most new laptop/videocards/monitors. It's also the basis for Intel's Lightpeak/Thunderbolt type stuff, which is their new crazy-high-bandwidth sucessor to USB; it basically mixes PCI-Express and DisplayPort on a single cable, which gives you a rather lot of flexibility on a single port.

    222. Re:why phase out DVI? by scubamage · · Score: 2

      You realize that HD DVD is still used for xbox 360, and there are at least some drives still floating around. Just because you consider it not relevant doesn't mean that it actually is.

    223. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Simple - in addition to good black color, I want to be able to view multiple resolutions with good image quality. LCDs cannot do that. Also, there are not a lot of 21" LCDs that have 1920x1440 maximum resolution. Oh, and I like that my CRT has no input lag.

      As for the electricity - my PCs already use 1.2kW, if I add 100W (actually less, since an LCD sill uses some power) to that, it won't make much of a difference.

    224. Re:why phase out DVI? by Fned · · Score: 1

      All fullsize displayport adapters i've seen feature a couple of little hooks to prevent cable getting loose.

      Incorrect. Fullsize displayport adapters have a couple of little hooks to lure users into destroying the cable, port, or both, mere moments after you hand them the fucking equipment.

    225. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a DVI out on the back on my computer, a DVI to HDMI converter, and an HDMI cable connecting to my TV. My TV plays sound. How do you send sound over DVI, exactly the same way you send it over HDMI, as HDMI is DVI-D with a new plug and HDCP standard rather than optional.

    226. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By using a source that supports sound over DVI. My video card that I bought over three years ago supports this.

    227. Re:why phase out DVI? by lgw · · Score: 1

      There are perfectly good reference-quality and nearly-so IPS LCD monitors. They're just not cheap. They're getting much cheaper though - decent, large *IPS monitors can be found for ~$600 now, and by the time you really need a D-port monitor they'll problably be $200.

      The reference-quality ones will probably stay in the $3000 range forever, but unless it's connected to a medical imaging device, I'm not sure why you'd need one.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    228. Re:why phase out DVI? by naasking · · Score: 2

      This is a huge power trip

      I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. Did it occur to anyone that this sort of move might be an Apple-inspired move to simplicity? HDMI can carry digital audio stream, so motherboards could consolidate around a single HDMI for both audio and video instead of providing SPDIF + DVI + 5-7 1/4 inch analog connectors. It's just more cost effective and simpler for consumers.

    229. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      LCDs are nice for space (in some cases) and power usage, but they cannot display both 1600x1200 and 1920x1440 perfectly. Also, they have input lag and usually the "black" color is not entirely "black".

    230. Re:why phase out DVI? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Get a 1920 by 1200 monitor instead of that 16x9 crap - most older resolutions work quite well using the 1600x1200 in the middle. Of course, it still looks like crap, but it looks like the same crap it did originally.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    231. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Nice to know, though I doubt that the adapter would support 1920x1440@85Hz.

    232. Re:why phase out DVI? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      I was able to buy an hdmi to component converter on Amazon for $40 and it works like a charm!

      http://www.amazon.com/SPDIF-Component-Ypbpr-Converter-v1-3b/dp/B002SFT3ZI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1327093543&sr=8-2

      True, it's not just a cable, but the whole idea of plugging the analog hole is a joke at this point.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    233. Re:why phase out DVI? by bigkahunah · · Score: 1

      Go buy me an HD-DVD at walmart. There is no new content to pirate from HD-DVDs rendering them irrelevant in this discussion. If you have lingering buyer's remorse over the xbox 360 add-on drive, I feel for you but it doesn't mean HD-DVDs are relevant.

    234. Re:why phase out DVI? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      As I posted higher up in the thread, I bought this one and it does a bang up job of converting hdmi output (at 1080i) into component video for my old projection television. It might very well be illegal, but it works great.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    235. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      That is only 162MHz. DACs on video cards are 400MHz, that allows them to output 1920x1440@85Hz, while this adapter can only support 1920x1200 (refresh rate not given).

      An adapter that can support that resolution or 2048x1536@75Hz would probably be much more expensive.

    236. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      If the drive that just got disconnected was the system drive, I'm pretty sure that restart will be required.

    237. Re:why phase out DVI? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Did you miss any of the bullet points on apple's webpage about displayport? Maybe you should consider working at the Apple store. If people wanted ultra high resolution 30" displays in the home, they would exist already. Ultra high resolution displays exist, but expect to pay north of $20K for one. The problem with super high resolution displays is that your eye can't resolve that kind of resolution beyond 12" or so. It's the same argument for why you don't need more than a 40" 720p display if you're sitting more than 12' from the display -- you just can't resolve that kind of information. It gets worse once you hit age 30 and start considering reading glasses.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    238. Re:why phase out DVI? by PastTense · · Score: 1

      "Business does not upgrade unless it absolutely has to do so"

      I would like you or anyone else here to look at the company cars the CEO and other top management are driving. Are you really certain business does not upgrade until it absolutely has to?

    239. Re:why phase out DVI? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you haven't looked lately. Even ATI's current bleeding edge gaming card supports DVI analog. (Yeah, it's a PDF. It's the manual. DVI-to-analog is noted on page 13.)

      It'd be aggressively stupid to do it (huge waste of expensive GPU), but it is supported.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    240. Re:why phase out DVI? by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Only DVI natively converts to VGA as it's built into the spec (four pins on the connector). HDMI and DP do not have pins for that. In order to convert from HDMI/DP to VGA you need a $60-70 converter, not a $10 adapter like you can use with DVI.

      True, but you're wrong on the price. Right now it's $13.93 for a VGA adapter at monoprice. Click here. Apple sells their adapter for $29 - a far cry from $60-70. Doubt many companies will price their products to be more then Apple's.

    241. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      So are VGA KVM switches, but the ones that support DVI or other interface are extremely expensive.

    242. Re:why phase out DVI? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      "The first taste is free" is the classic recruitment inducement of many scuzzy lowlife pushers. And also drug dealers.

      This is probably related to the tacit semi-approval by software companies of software piracy in third-world companies: market-building until the technology improves to the point that you can actively enforce your extortionate pricing structure, at which point you already have a captive market ready for slaughter.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    243. Re:why phase out DVI? by duk242 · · Score: 1

      Yep, when we upgrade to our non-dvi/vga monitors, we will have to rebuy all our ubisoft games due to a "change in hardware".

    244. Re:why phase out DVI? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      ...and don't forgot "single link" and "dual link" plus 5 different connector standards.

    245. Re:why phase out DVI? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah, I still use old hardware. :/

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    246. Re:why phase out DVI? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.

      Hey! I thought your name was Ren :)

      Forty! Seven! Meeellion! Dollars!!??!! IIIIII'm the Cat!!!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    247. Re:why phase out DVI? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      They're not "exactly the same" when you consider higher resolution or greater color depth that dual link DVI allows thanks to the additional TDMS lines.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    248. Re:why phase out DVI? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Put two good CRTs next to two good LCDs and you may just notice

      ...that on the LCD the colours actually line up and that the pixels are the same size at the top and at the bottom and that the display does not flicker. And all this stays true even after you move the monitor around, without fiddling any knobs!

      God I hated CRT's. The only decent ones I've ever tried were Sun's 21" black-and-white. They were absolutely gorgeous and my eyes never strained. Alas, neither the SGI rebadged Sony Trinitrons nor the Sun colour monitors were anywhere near as good.

      Give me decent resolution, correct geometry, and no flickering. If that means sticking with black and white, so be it.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    249. Re:why phase out DVI? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      I hadn't noticed that apple's web page has bullet points of this form, where is it?

      Anyway, it doesn't really matter, what's said above is factual information, it doesn't matter if Apple states the facts too, DP is better than DVI for the above reasons.

      Re retina displays –the reason no one wants them is because no OS currently supports them in a reasonable way. The only OS that comes close is OS X, which supports them in a hidden mode for developers to debug applications at 2x zoom. As soon as apple releases a version of OS X that does support these kinds of resolutions (I'd expect at the same time as they release laptops with these kinds of resolutions), there will be demand for them.

    250. Re:why phase out DVI? by rnturn · · Score: 1

      "I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'."

      Huh? Were we watching the same cartoon? Ren was the chihuahua. Stimpy was the cat.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    251. Re:why phase out DVI? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't so clear when you take quality and functionality into account. Good CRTs can have better pictures, and certainly have some capabilities (like resolution switching) that LCDs don't possess.

    252. Re:why phase out DVI? by lytithwyn · · Score: 1

      As others have said, all my SATA connectors lock into place. That you bought yours from Jose at the corner for 5 cents a piece is not a problem with SATA but with you.

      This is great until you get a crappy "locking" one that doesn't want to unlock no matter how hard you squeeze and you nearly break the connector off trying to disconnect it. If you work in a PC shop long enough you'll run into plenty of them.

    253. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the only thing xbox 360 ever had to do with HD DVD was an add-on player that was sold between 2006 and 2008.

      I think it's fair to say it's long-dead.

    254. Re:why phase out DVI? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      It is pretty useless for pirates if new content is not actually being published for it.

    255. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It's exceptionally rare to find anything above 1600x1200 on a VGA-only monitor. A 162MHz adapter would probably cover the vast majority of customers.

    256. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anssi55 · · Score: 1

      There is no separate audio pin/channel, the audio data is transmitted during the blanking periods (or whatever the empty space between frames is called) and therefore work equally with both DVI and HDMI cables.

    257. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      CRT monitors (especially the bigger ones) support higher resolutions - mine supports buth 1920x1440@85Hz and 2048x1536@75Hz (the spec sheet says 80Hz, but my does card has 75 and 85, not 80).

    258. Re:why phase out DVI? by Bensam123 · · Score: 2

      Those adapters are made for macbooks, which have a built in converter. You can't use them on normal HDMI devices.

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=hdmi+to+vga&x=0&y=0

      Look at the ratings on all the HDMI to VGA cables and look at the reviews. Somethings not right with the reviews at monoprice, as there are no low rated reviews and none of them mention having trouble with the device. You need an active converter capable of doing that. That would be the $40 box on the page you linked.

    259. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I still think those cases will be rare. Projectors didn't and don't tend to do those kinds of resolutions over VGA, and a typical CRT monitor probably topped out somewhere around 1600x1200 (my 21" Viewsonic beast certainly did). Of the 54 reviews for the adapter on Monoprice, not a single one complains about maximum resolutions ;)

    260. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI has extra pins for the audio. That's the only difference between HDMI and DVI.

    261. Re:why phase out DVI? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Well, the maximum resolution is written, so anybody who wants higher resolution (me, for example) would not buy it and would not complain about it :)

    262. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, with those shitty "vampire" connectors, those 10B2 networks were rarely reliable even when brand new.

    263. Re:why phase out DVI? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      absolutely, how else do yuo think the CEO gets to buy a fancy car if it isn't because the company has saved a fortune keeping the "little people" working with ancient kit?

      Anyway, it does cost a lot to upgrade stuff, not just the cost of the kit but the cost of making sure everything still works and repairing/upgrading that too when (not if) if doesn't work perfectly.

      For example, if you had a load of KVM switches and upgrade your old VGA-style monitors, you might think you'll just go and buy a load of DVI switches instead.

    264. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can actually send sound over DVI as well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Compatibility_with_DVI

    265. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What now?

      http://www.amazon.com/Display-Port-Male-Female-Adapter/dp/B0026REL8C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1327103020&sr=8-3

    266. Re:why phase out DVI? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      http://www.tvcables.co.uk/cgi-bin/tvcables/displayport-to-vga-adapter.html

      Supports resolutions greater than QXGA (2048 x 1536) at 24-bit colour depths.

      It doesn't say what frequency, but it does say video bandwidth up to 10.8Gbps.

    267. Re:why phase out DVI? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      hmm, so can I put a HDMI signal into a HDMI->DisplayPort adapter, and then pipe that into a DP->VGA adapter???

    268. Re:why phase out DVI? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > They're just not cheap.
      That's the advantage CRT has. =)

      Speaking of price and PQ -- are there any cheap 10-bit/channel displays? 24-bit color sucks and so do 8-bit/channel displays...

    269. Re:why phase out DVI? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      I also wonder why they mention DVI. DVI and HDMI is basically the same video signal.

      Just that DVI has no sound and no DRM capability.

      So when you don't need sound or have an additional soundcard, and you don't play content with DRM (Like in 99% of workplaces) you can simply replace the DVI -> DVI monitor cable with a HDMI -> DVI Monitor cable. Starting at $2 it seems.

    270. Re:why phase out DVI? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      DisplayPort (the current fancy cutting edge port) supports 1900x1200 4 times. ie, a DP 1.2 can daisy-chain 4 monitors.

      Over fibre-optic so your monitors can be far, far away.

    271. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy Keanu aside... Dvi has reached the end of life. A single link dvi maxes out at around 2 megapixels with 32 bit color at 60 fps or a bit over 1080p hdtv. Hdmi, display port, and others will go MUCH higher. It also gets rid of the audio cable, which is nice. Hdcp is sometimes a pain, but it's not mandatory except for blueray.

    272. Re:why phase out DVI? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Right, because VGA graphics cards and adapters will be illegal, and the gestapo will go house to house looking for hidden DVI monitors?

      forced obsolescence.

      I dont think that means what you think it means.

    273. Re:why phase out DVI? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      that's true - we bought a hundred new PCs from Dell and they came with Displayport only.

      That's *only* DP. Mind you, we bought monitors at the same time so we didn't much care, but that's the way it seems to be going at Dell.

    274. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that HD DVD is still used for xbox 360, and there are at least some drives still floating around. Just because you consider it not relevant doesn't mean that it actually is.

      HD-DVD is not being used anymore. The xbox 360 does not support HD-DVD natively even in the newer edition of it. The xbox still only uses dual-layer DVDs. If there are HD-DVD drives still out there, no one makes new ones and no one is making anymore media for it.

    275. Re:why phase out DVI? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Nope, Apple's mini-DisplayPort to VGA adapter is a proper active adapter and any equivalent of it would be too. I know this because people have used them with the mini-DP connectors on high-end Radeon cards which definitely don't have any kind of special VGA hardware and additionally only support at most two non-DP monitors at once, and they've managed to run single card triple-head setups using them.

    276. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your nic, I presume that you're not much up on the leading edge of computer hardware.

      You mean he has an ancient ISA one with 10Base2 BNC connectors or something like that?

      My computer has only an AUI port, but I have the 10Base2 tranceiver connected to it.

    277. Re:why phase out DVI? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Sure. But ever use a dual link div adapter? Also most smaller monitors don't come with dual link cables. Painful lesson when you're picking up a monitor second hand and forget that fact.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    278. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would it be too big an imposition to become informed about the facts before projecting hate?"

      Would it be too big an imposition to just say you're a shill instead of making us read a few paragraphs of your B.S.???

    279. Re:why phase out DVI? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      And I'm an Asthmahound Chihuahua named 'Stimpy'.
      ...

      I'm skeptical of this claim. You didn't call me an "eeeediot".

      That'd be "Ren", not "Stimpy". Did Kricfalusi teach you nothing?

    280. Re:why phase out DVI? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Reason is simple: cost.

      DVI connectors are complicated and expensive to make by 2012 standards, and most higher-resolution computer monitors now support HDMI instead.

    281. Re:why phase out DVI? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's true, I have just had bad experiences with HDMI. It Does Not Just Work.

      You would think they would be they same, but in practice they are not. I think that is mainly because the vast majority of HDMI displays out there are not monitors by design, but meant for sources other than a computer.

      Why is it that three different computers/laptops with HDMI connectors all operate slightly differently on a couple of different HDMI display devices?

      DVI does not do that.

      While Display Port is probably a lot more reliable than HDMI in that regard, it is not $2 for an adapter. Try 10x more expensive at a minimum at 50-60x more expensive at the high end.

    282. Re:why phase out DVI? by bored · · Score: 1

      Yah me three, I haven't had to screw with monitor timings in 15 years until I decided to try plugging my PC into a HDMI TV. For some reason 1080p from the HDMI port on my PC isn't the same as 1080p from my entertainment stack.

    283. Re:why phase out DVI? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      The analogy fails. Credit-card companies aren't trying to hide their own customers' credit card numbers from them.

    284. Re:why phase out DVI? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Or possibly because VGA & DVI are bulky ports, laptops are the profitable market now, and laptops with just HDMI ports would be lighter, thinner, and more salable than laptops with all three of them?

      PCMCIA died for similar reasons: things get obsolete faster in the laptop world. If you need the functionality, plug into a USB port. Or in this case, plug a HDMI->VGA adapter. Most users won't even notice it's gone.

    285. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VGA is still the standard for servers.
      I can't see many admins being interested in maintaining a hodgepodge of a mix between VGA, HDMI and DP.

      VGA also has the advantage of not being tied to specific resolutions - the higher you clock the UART, the higher resolution you can have. Even now, I can get higher resolution from a single VGA connector here than DVI-D or HDMI. My VGA connected monitor runs at 2048x1536, and the graphics card can go higher still.

    286. Re:why phase out DVI? by Fastball · · Score: 2

      No where near as bad as optical SPDIF cables. Whoever designed those should be poisoned, shot four times, stabbed, beaten, rolled up in carpet, and thrown into a freezing river.

    287. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is while HDMI to DVI adapters exist, the DVI portion of that does not include analog connectors, which means you will not be able to stack a DVI to VGA adapter on top of that. I've actually tried this - they just don't fit.

      Even if they fit, you'd get nowhere.

      A full DVI port contains both a set of VGA analog signals (literally 100% compatible electrically), plus a second set of digital signals equivalent to the VGA signals. DVI outputs can be digital only, or digital+analog.

      HDMI is a pure digital port. The digital signals are electrically compatible with single link DVI, so no active circuitry is required to make an adapter. As long as all you want is digital DVI, that is. Since HDMI has no analog signals at all, to make HDMI->DVI->VGA work, you must perform a digital to analog conversion somewhere in the chain. (As with the $100-$150 HDMI->VGA devices you tracked down.)

      IIRC, DVI connectors were designed with keying features so that you can make it impossible to plug an analog DVI cable into a digital only DVI port. That's probably why you can't even assemble the dongle chain you tried to make.

      There's no inherent reason the active digital to analog converters have to cost so much, BTW, it's cheap technology. The price reflects it being a low volume product.

    288. Re:why phase out DVI? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      "Yes the picture did gross $784 Million, but after production, distribution, marketing, promotional activities, etc, etc, etc, we lost money on the picture, which is why you are not getting a 5% of Net, because there is none. By the way, are you available for the Sequel?'.

      Any Hollywood contract would have contractually obligated you to the sequel.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    289. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates don't even need the analog hole. Both HD-DVD and blu-ray have been cracked enough to just decrypt the disc.

      That's amateurs. Real money is made when you simply duplicate DVDs and Blue-Rays by copying everything, including encryption, byte for byte.

    290. Re:why phase out DVI? by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Newegg currently lists 77 different video cards with DisplayPort connectors on them.

    291. Re:why phase out DVI? by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Probably more like he paid $20 for it at Best Buy. The cheap ones from Monoprice beat pretty much anything else I've seen quality-wise, including the ones B&M retailers sell for 10x the price.

    292. Re:why phase out DVI? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'd say plugging in a CRT is a waste of perfectly good electricity. Why are you hoarding crap?

      CRTs have better picture quality than LCD displays, and the difference in power consumption is quite small; an extra $5 per year in electricity to operate a CRT of equivalent size versus a LCD for 6 hours a day..

      LCDs burn extra power for all that CFL backlighting of the display, so the gap is fairly narrow... both are just about the same "waste" of perfectly good electricity.
      Newer 19" and 24" LCDs wind up using a lot more power than older smaller CRTs, anyways.

      If you want to save power, get a 6" or 8" display.

      The biggest advantage of LCDs is that they are thinner, and weight less per inch of display.

    293. Re:why phase out DVI? by Siridar · · Score: 1

      All new macs have DisplayPort (well, Mini-DP, but there's a adapter) and most Dell Monitors (that aren't the budget rubbish) have them, as well. My GTX580 has a displayport, er, port - and I've got it running to my dell 27", which also happens to do audio.

    294. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      They'll give us a port we can't refuse.

    295. Re:why phase out DVI? by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      I used to really miss my 21" Iiyama displays. I had a heavily reinforced, and extremely large desk to accommodate 4 of them. Ever try to wall mount 4 100lb CRT's in a small area? It can be done, but you generally have to do some structural work, or at least install steel plates on both sides of the studs to handle it. I knew a few people that had 10-12 mounted that way. They didn't just have to work on the mounting issue, they had to improve the airflow to the room to make the room less of a sauna in the summer.

      Wall mounting 4-6 LCD's (or 12 if you are a stock broker, and have taken your Ritalin), and still having room for 2 more on the desktop is trivial now. You also don't have to call in the HVAC guy to add more ducting to increase the airflow to deal with the heat.

      VGA I can probably live without, although some of my displays have shown some surprising longevity, but DVI will be a bit painful not to have on the board.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    296. Re:why phase out DVI? by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Good CRTs were, until very recently, the monitors to use for those who work in color-accurate space.
      Calibration was a hassle, but it was possible, unlike with Apple/Dell/HP monitors. Fortunately HP's pricey Dreamcolor has finally allowed for a fully-calibratible LCD display.

    297. Re:why phase out DVI? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      really? I was under the impression that 360 utilized HD-DVD, whereas PS obviously supported blue-ray.

    298. Re:why phase out DVI? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      Nope, there was an external hd-DVD drive you could buy for it though.

    299. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they phase out DVI, forcing everybody to replace their monitors when they upgrade their computers. My new video cards didn't have VGA ports - they only had DVI. Fortunately I was buying new monitors anyway, but anyone who had VGA monitors would have been forced to replace them or buy adapters when they swapped out their video cards.

      THE ADAPTERS COST LIKE 5 BUCKS. You'd think they were holding a gun to your head and demanding your life's savings, the way you describe it.

      Similar things have been going on for years - look at USB. The connector keeps changing even though the technology hasn't. It's still 4 pins - and most devices don't ship with a cable anymore, you have to buy it separately. The cable you had for your old device won't plug into your new one, forcing you to buy another cable.

      You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Yeah, they screwed up the connectors quite a bit, but the bits about how the technology hasn't changed and the connector is still 4 pins? Try again. USB 3.0 adds 5 more pins (9 total) and they function as a new, completely different high speed bus which happens to live inside the same connector as the old USB 1.x/2.x signals.

      They've made an absolute mess of the USB 3.0 connectors by trying to hack the new pins in without making (some of) the connectors incompatible with the old ones, but the changes weren't arbitrary. Before USB 3.0 the only connector fuckery was the transition from the original mini connector to a newer design. The newer design is a lot more mechanically robust, they screwed up the original one.

      Same kind of thing for almost your whole list. You're glossing over a lot of valid reasons why things had to change which do not amount to "they're trying to screw you".

    300. Re:why phase out DVI? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Note that HDMI has only HALF the wiring that DVI does (and there are some DVI ports that omit half of the digital lines).

      And that is precisely the problem for me. My monitors exceed 1080p specs (2048x1152 to be exact) and therefore require that ALL of those digital lines are in place. If I use an HDMI port (or a single-link DVI cable), I get only 1920x1080 -- either stretched or letterboxed, my choice. I had to specifically choose my last graphics card based on it having two DVI ports natively because nothing else will do. What becomes of those of us who prefer to drive monitors in excess of 1080p specs?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    301. Re:why phase out DVI? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Not ALL DVI ports have the analog portion. Note that HDMI has only HALF the wiring that DVI does (and there are some DVI ports that omit half of the digital lines).

      And that is precisely the problem for me. My monitors exceed 1080p specs (2048x1152 to be exact) and therefore require that ALL of those digital lines are in place. If I use an HDMI port (or a single-link DVI cable), I get only 1920x1080 -- either stretched or letterboxed, my choice. I had to specifically choose my last graphics card based on it having two DVI ports natively because nothing else will do. What becomes of those of us who prefer to drive monitors in excess of 1080p specs?

      It also so happens that my monitors completely lack pin holes for the analog lines, so I physically had to break them off one end of the cable.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    302. Re:why phase out DVI? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I've heard that DisplayPort is technically superior, but at this point it's not going to be catching up, at least not in the mainstream

      It depends, on the computer video side, the industry is pretty firmly moving towards DisplayPort (all high-end nvidia cards are DisplayPort now) and HDMI is almost nonexistent.

      But on the A/V side it's exactly the opposite, TVs, projectors, Blu-Ray players, all HDMI. No DisplayPort.

      It remains to be seen which will win in the long run or if both standards will end up surviving, but HDMI has a big head start.

    303. Re:why phase out DVI? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the connector is inconveniently large. How exactly doesn't HDMI work every time without fail? It's the same signal, no?

      Even though DVI technically supports it, I think most people here think "unprotected DVI" and "HDCP-protected HDMI." It's the HDCP that makes HDMI somewhat flakey. I have a PS3, a Tivo, and an HDMI switcher from Monoprice, and the the video handshaking breaks rather often, and I'm pretty sure it's due to HDCP. If the handshaking is successful, then the video is perfect until the next time I need to switch. After trying out different switchers and different fixes, the official answer that Monoprice gave me is that HDMI is just finnicky and that sometimes devices just won't communicate with each other, and the only to know is to test all three devices (player, switch, and display) to see if that particular combination is compatible.

    304. Re:why phase out DVI? by EdZ · · Score: 1

      DVI-A and DVI-I, yes, but I've seen so many things which implement just DVI-D that banishing the port to remove the analog portion is a pointless exercise. More likely, the shift to HDMI and DP is purely because the connectors are smaller so devices can be thinner. Simple.

    305. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Hollywood and Big Media will be pushing for a monitor standard which detects uncertified video, blocks it, reports you and sets your house on fire.

      Yes, but it will only work on x86 CPUs with the HCF instruction set extension.

      The House Combustion Function?

    306. Re:why phase out DVI? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      The "Analogue Hole" is unaffected by digital restrictions

      False, since content can be watermarked (invisibly) and made to be unplayable on different digital devices.
      With watermarks, even using a digital camcorder to record from your DRM'ed TV can be made impossible.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    307. Re:why phase out DVI? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. There are a group of contacts that carry VGA alongside DVI. If those are not present, you get no analog signal out of the DVI what so ever.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

      The contacts in question are the 2x2 to the right of the main cluster in the pin out. Those carry analog RGB.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    308. Re:why phase out DVI? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Is it me, or does it seem the the total entertainment industry losses to everything excepting their own lack of creativity and originality always seem to add up to more money than currently exists in the world at that time?

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    309. Re:why phase out DVI? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The analogy clearly failed in explaining stuff to you.

      But the analogy has absolutely nothing to do with credit card companies.

      --
    310. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get one of those diamond-coated HDMIs, works like a charm, other HDMIs are not worth your money.

    311. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stimpy is a cat! Ren is the asthmahound chihuahua!

    312. Re:why phase out DVI? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well there are premium TV channels and PPV, but those can be ripped with a HDMI capture card. Even if the DRM were perfect, which is impossible, they could never hope to control the vast market for cheap consumer goods that need HDMI decoders enough to prevent such things from existing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    313. Re:why phase out DVI? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How many corporate LCDs, in use 8-9 hours a day, actually last more than 5 years? And in the mean time expect lots of free bundled adapters, like you already get with most graphics cards, but now with monitors and new PCs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    314. Re:why phase out DVI? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I just bought 10 DP to VGA converters for $50. HDMI to VGA are likewise $5 a piece including shipping, I think you're confused with the VGA-to-HDMI up converters which run anywhere between $30 and $100.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    315. Re:why phase out DVI? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If nothing else the devices all ought to have a "stop trying to be smart and FUCKING DO EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO" mode. You think your source isn't 5.1? BULLSHIT, yes it is.

      That would be impossible to implement because all data over HDMI is encoded in some way, so even if you tell it the audio is 5.1 unless it can actually see that an decode it properly it ain't gonna work. That is the same for all but the simplest digital interfaces.

      My guess is a bit tighter spec and better testing requirements tied to using the HDMI name/logo would have reduced these problem from nearly universal to occasional, at least.

      I have honestly never had issues with HDMI. My DVI monitor occasionally blanks out for a second as it loses sync with the PC, but HDMI is always fine for me. Maybe I'm just lucky, I buy the cheapest cables I can find.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    316. Re:why phase out DVI? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Because DVI is also an analog interface? Or are you forgetting the VGA-compatible (analog) C1-C5 signals? Which are, amazingly not at all present in a HDMI connection.

      You are thinking of DVI-I, which is a hack to the connector to fit them both in the same footprint on the back of a video card. That's got nothing to do with DVI as the interface.

    317. Re:why phase out DVI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Indeed, subject to one caveat. Ordinary DVD writers are incapable of writing an encrypted DVD - they just can't write a CSS key block. It's a restriction built into the firmware and required to licence the DVD specification. I would assume the same is true of blu-ray. You can still press them, which is how encrypted DVDs are made - so the byte-for-byte copy method is available, but only to those who have economy of scale. Organised crime, certainly - any operation good enough to bribe/blackmail their way into access to a pressing plant could churn out copies by the millions with ease, no need to break any encryption - but it isn't something available to the masses of students and amateurs.

      Not that they need to, because both DVD and blu-ray encryption has been cracked now anyway. There was originally a countermasure for that in the CPSA architecture, a watermark to be embedded that would tell playback devices to refuse to play if it was from a nonencrypted source, but that part was abandoned due to insurmountable technical obsticles.

    318. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, some monitors do not show an image from a HDMI transmitter that does not support HDCP. I ran into this issue when I tried to use my Gumstix Overo board (OMAP3-based tiny ARM computer) with a Philips Brilliance widescreen monitor.

    319. Re:why phase out DVI? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      It's rare that I see one go bad. In fact, my CRT's lasted quite a long time. I ended up donating them for a tax deduction. Every LCD monitor I have ever owned is still in use today. That's going on 7 years for some of them.

      In business I can tell you that for various clients that about half of all LCD monitors in use are 5-7 years old.

      So to answer your question, quite a few.

      This is why that most of the PC purchases I have made have been without bundled monitors because the old one gets reused. PCs die and get swapped out a heck of a lot faster than monitors.

    320. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which HD-DVD discs would you be referring to? :-)

    321. Re:why phase out DVI? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      I doubt this is happening for that exact reason. Every monitor besides my DVI monitors that I've ever seen uses still uses VGA for fuck's sake. There'd be a an uproar if someone considered shipping a tower with only HDMI.

      Besides, even if they did, I'm sure adapters would continue to abound.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    322. Re:why phase out DVI? by Conley+Index · · Score: 2

      DisplayPort is not just an industry standard, it is a royalty free standard, but HDMI seems to be winning - the only device I've seen with DisplayPort is my 2+ year old HP laptop and I have about 18 devices with HDMI in my household (heck, our cellphones even have it).

      It might be about the kind of devices you got.

      My Thinkpad has DisplayPort. The only stand alone display I have at home got DisplayPort. My Dell desktop at work (university) got 2 functional (Nvidia card) and 1 non-functional (on board Intel) DisplayPort. Both new Dell 1920x1200 displays I got at work have DisplayPort. At home and at work I got not a single HDMI device.

      OT: The only weirdness is Dell delivering to us desktops with only DisplayPort and the same number of displays with DisplayPort and DVI (and VGA?), but instead of DisplayPort cables, we get DVI cables and DisplayPort-to-DVI adapters. The reason is probably the same as last year when there were VGA cables preattached to the Dell displays that came with desktops with the only functional ports being 2 DisplayPort with 2 adapters to DVI.

    323. Re:why phase out DVI? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      ... they are.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    324. Re:why phase out DVI? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      That's not piracy, that's using your own equipment. The piracy win is that I can download Blueray disc rips that only take up 5GBs for a 1080p movie.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    325. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 2 LCD's lasting 5+ years 24 hours/day, as in they do not get turned off NEVER, power is cheap enough for me to not have to turn off PC or LCD's, i simply use them as kind of night-light

      and just one note, its the cheapest LCD i could find not some expensive "high-quality zero pixel" LCD so i expect it is normal for everyone to have long-lasting LCD's

    326. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not like "coward" moniker, a lot of intelligent people choose anonymity, some (like me) are anonymous "cowards" for over ten years and if we wanted we could get one of those "oh so cool" four digit IDs you "non-cowards" cherish so much :)

      I AM ANONYMOUS AND PROUD OF IT :)

    327. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering you can get motherboard, CPU, and (integrated) graphic for less than $40 suddenly your $18+ does not look so cheap for a adapter that on DVI would be $2 or less

    328. Re:why phase out DVI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI uses the exact same signaling as DVI-D for the video...

    329. Re:why phase out DVI? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      Puts me in mind of the wonderful move to SATA connectors .. you know, those damn things which come loose and you have to shut down, open cabinet and push back in place?

      At least the move to SATA had more legitimate reasons to be pushed than phasing out DVI. At the speeds data is moving these data a serial link is much easier to keep correctly in sync (we would not have pushed PATA much beyond where it got, speed wise) while also creating less EMI and the thinner cables are much better for cable management (both in terms of getting them to go where you want them, and them not causing air-flow problems in systems that need good flow in order not to set themselves on fire).

      Even non-latching connectors seem to hold firmer now, in my experience.

      Phasing out DVI in favour of DisplayPort seems far more arbitrary to me. You need a rather large high-res monitor to hit dual-link DVI's transmission limits and the change doesn't solve any cabling problems. The only problem with DVI for most users is the size of the connector - but there is mini-DVI for when that is a problem.

    330. Re:why phase out DVI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Most of the BDrips I've seen are 8GB, but pirates do tend to go a little higher than they need to with bitrates. They really need to stop doing that, and work on improving encoding technique instead - more and more ISPs are imposing quotas now, and the lower the size the easier to keep under the radar.

    331. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My failure rate for LCDs hasn't been as good. I've seen plenty succumb to bad capacitors. I've had a pretty good success at repairing them, but overall I'm not impressed with their reliability. With that said though, at my workplace the failure rate is much lower which goes to show that if you stick to some of the better "enterprise" grade hardware they do seem to be a bit better built.

    332. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Where do you buy HDMI to VGA converters so cheap? I'm sure lots of people here would appreciate a link.

    333. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, if there is a way to get a modern monitor to display a picture from an old monochrome video adapter I might be interested.

    334. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Wow, a whole $10 a year? By the time you get done dealing the the idiots on craiglist for a cheap used monitor that may or may not actually work properly, then dealt with the hassle of getting rid of the CRTs which would almost certainly involve having to haul them to the recycle center and paying money for them to take them, your better off just using the monitors you have if you're happy with them and eat the slightly higher electric costs.

    335. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I've seen plenty of them, usually bundled with smaller monitors as it must save them a few cents per unit. Though my favorite are the ones I saw that had a DVI-I connector on one end and a DVI-D connector on the other.

    336. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that a lot of motherboards now omit the Firewire port, mostly in favor of USB3 or e-Sata now. I think Firewire peaked with the LGA775-generation chips. It's still fairly available, but you better check the specs first if you need firewire instead of assuming it will be there.

    337. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a step up for Dell. Not long ago we bought a bunch of new computers from Dell and they were VGA-only, a port that should have been phased out a decade ago on a bunch of new computers in 2011.

    338. Re:why phase out DVI? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Amazon. Search for HDMI to VGA. You can also buy directly from Chinese manufacturers if you need them in sufficient quantities, they're roughly 50 cents before shipping.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    339. Re:why phase out DVI? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Those won't help most people. HDMI is digital, VGA is analog. Apparently there are a few devices that have non-standard HDMI ports that will output an analog VGA when they sense that those cables are plugged in, however, those are the exception. Most people will need an active digital HDMI to analog VGA converter along the lines of this:
      http://www.amazon.com/Brainydeal-Vga2HDMI3-5mm-VGA-to-HDMI/dp/B003VJ9RCO/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1327196304&sr=8-26

      At only $35, at least it's a bit cheaper than I expected.

    340. Re:why phase out DVI? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Yes, smallest I've seen for 1080p is 3GB, and most are a good deal bigger.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    341. Re:why phase out DVI? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      As I said you're confused with VGA -> HDMI scalers/converters. Bensam was talking about DVI -> VGA, HDMI -> VGA and DP -> VGA all of which are really, really cheap. All these cables work only one way though, downgrading the signal from digital to analog.

      I do agree that VGA -> DP/DVI/HDMI (analog signal to digital signal) are way more expensive and I swear by Gefen for those things. Yes, pricey but definitely worth their price.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    342. Re:why phase out DVI? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      (Sorry, I somehow posted that reply to the wrong subthread.)

    343. Re:why phase out DVI? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      OK. Maybe a bug in Slashdot.

      That said, I find in Slashdot's "fancy javascript" mode the threading/layout is really weird compared to the "classic mode".

      --
    344. Re:why phase out DVI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The standard size if 4.4GB for a 720p, just like it's 700MB for a DVD... for the practical reason that these are exactly the right size to fit onto a DVD-R or CD-R respectively. 1080p doesn't do well at that bitrate, so they usually are 8GB, or just about right for a dual-layer DVD.

    345. Re:why phase out DVI? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      No idea, but HDMI to DisplayPort adapters seem rare. Monoprice doesn't have any.

    346. Re:why phase out DVI? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Interesting, back when I was doing support for multi million pound companies the average lifetime of an LCD monitor was about three to four years. These were not cheap ones either, NEC or some of the nicer Dell/HP models. Often they would upgrade before they died anyway as larger screens became more affordable, and then because they wanted multiple identical screens. That was slowing down by the time I finished doing that stuff though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    347. Re:why phase out DVI? by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Just that DVI has no sound and no DRM capability.

      DVI-D is fully compatible with HDCP. In fact I watch Blu-ray movies on my computer in full 1080p over DVI-D. A quick google search for "DVI HDCP" turned up several links that corroborate this.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  2. Interesting by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The one that was introduced 13 years later is being phased out at the same time as the one that was introduced thirty-six years ago? How odd.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thirty six? I'll give it to you but only because it's friday..

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was introduced in 1986 as well, so please refrain from making me older than I actually am.

    3. Re:Interesting by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      almost 35 actually, VGA introduced with the IBM PS/2 line in 1987

    4. Re:Interesting by daid303 · · Score: 2

      I guess DVI will stay, but DVI-A and DVI-I which both still have the VGA signal in the DVI connector are going to be a thing of the past. DVI without analogue is just HDMI without audio. Do you see HDMI go anytime soon?

      EGA was introduced in 1984. VGA in 1987. Guess VGA hold up pretty well, but it's time for VGA to go. It's pushed to the limits, and if you connect a large resolution monitor to VGA you will notice it.

    5. Re:Interesting by MisterMidi · · Score: 2

      I guess 25 is almost 35.

    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your math. I was born in 1978 and I'm not yet 35. I suspect you meant 25.

    7. Re:Interesting by SirWhoopass · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess 25 is almost 35.

      Especially when you're 16.

    8. Re:Interesting by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      VGA were the safe, stable port. Above a threshold, DVI took off like crazy. They never took off for the most part. I would liken DVI to the clear improvement, but it just didn't take off in the general population. HDMI, dear god HDMI. I think even my toaster has an HDMI port. This thing is the clear next safe, stable port.

      HDMI is being widely accepted. DVI wasn't. It is time for VGA to die. *Takes off hat, and mourns*. The logical thing from a business standpoint is just go all in with the new format. Doubly so with the apparent trend of twiggy portable devices.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    9. Re:Interesting by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Ugh, the PS/2. Burn in hell.

      My company paid, IIRC, about $12K for a PS/2-80 (16MHz 386 + 4MB RAM). The MCA bus was a nightmare to design for as it was an asynchronous bus and the timing changed for each model. I had a shelf of IBM technical docs released for each new model with the new timing specs which too often broke compatibility with existing MCA cards. So much "innovation". The cases were built like grotesquely heavy tanks though, for better or worse.

    10. Re:Interesting by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's chemically induced New Math...see my post above

    11. Re:Interesting by DG · · Score: 2

      I, quite literally, own t-shirts older than you.

      Just sayin'

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    12. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MIcrochannel being asynchronous isn't the reason your boards failed when put into newer systems... it's because you were used to programming for the AT where you didn't have to worry about getting it right Admit it!!! ;)

    13. Re:Interesting by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "but it's time for VGA to go. It's pushed to the limits"

      Not even close. See, the analog domain has practically no bandwidth limitation. crappy DVI only does 1920x1200, I was doing 2048x1536 on VGA well before DVI was even a standard.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Interesting by omnichad · · Score: 2

      I have no idea why manufacturers like Dell would include an tower with both VGA and DVI, a monitor with both VGA and DVI, and then a VGA cable. Nobody (consumers) knew that DVI was sharper or clearer or better contrast. But HDMI? It's got HD in the name! It's what you hook up a blu-ray or HD satellite with. If you get a computer with HDMI, you're happy because you know that the cable alone is worth at least $50 (to the Best Buy customer).

    15. Re:Interesting by spauldo · · Score: 1

      I rather liked the PS/2, although that might be because I only fixed them, not designed hardware for them.

      It's the only system I've worked with that had caged removable parts that actually worked the way they were supposed to. You could strip one down to the case in under a minute with practice.

      Dell, Compaq, and a host of other manufacturers tried to copy the idea, but they failed every time. The closest I've seen is older Sun products, and even they aren't even in the same league.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    16. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2012-1986=26

    17. Re:Interesting by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Dual-link DVI can do 2560x1600. Crappy HDMI which is basically single-link DVI with audio and a lousy connector is limited to 1920x1200.

    18. Re:Interesting by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The only thing VGA needs is a better-speed RAMDAC, typical ones run 400MHz, which seems good for 2048x1536.

      Bump that to 600MHz and let's see what we're doing.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  3. Sweet! by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

    Millions of monitors (Hey, up until recently many cheaper LCD panels were VGA-Only) and more importantly many projectors will become useless. Projectors aren't your 150€ "special" at your local electronic store. Furthermore, if you've been thinking of buying a monitor now (for example, the 2560x1440 are finally getting into "acceptable" price range), think again... Your next computer might just not like it if it's DVI/VGA.

    That said, I've seen the trend (with comsumers) to simply buy a smaller TV with HDMI/VGA and use that as a monitor. It's often cheaper than an equivalent monitor. Go figure...

    Yet another adapter to carry around, *if* you can even use an adapter.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Sweet! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I suspect you would have a difficult time finding a 2560x1440 panel that doesn't support HDMI. DisplayPort does seem to be slower to catch on though.

      That said, phasing out DVI seems entirely premature. I wonder if NPD is one of those trade groups that still has its panties in a bunch because DVI is unencrypted and could theoretically be used by pirates.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Sweet! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      An adapter or a converter. I'd imagine intelligent pc monitor and tv manufacturers would retain those ports for decades to come to maintain compatibility. I had a stupid Hanns G monitor once that I ordered off newegg, that had ONLY 1 HDMI port (I didn't read, was a good deal), it also came with a hdmi male / dvi male cable (single wire), never seen anything like it, but worked like a charm. I guess they're similar enough where you can do a crossover cable..?

      Also the smaller tv is cheaper due to the inferior resolution, your desktop and media will always look better on the PC monitor. When a tv says its pc compatible, it means it supports a common pc resolution as opposed to something like 1368x768 or something that a lot of graphics cards struggle w.

    3. Re:Sweet! by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      You're probably right... I haven't shopped much around, but I have been tempted ever since my wife got her iMac 27". Anyway, if you've got a defective monitor now and the story is true, you're in a bad position. Monitors usually last much longer than computers. Heck, I still have my 1024x768 15" LCD flat panel (VGA, obviously), which I bought in 2000 or so. It was insanely expensive, but it was worth it because it saved so much desk space. It is currently connected to my parents server, for occasional console work. Usually ssh suffices though.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Sweet! by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Dell 3007WFP (2560x1600), but I concede that's old stock.
      Barco Coronis Fusion 6MP DL is a current monitor 3280 x 2048 with a pair of dual-link DVI connectors and nothing else.

      DisplayPort I've found to be particularly annoying. You /can/ end up having to reboot a monitor to get rid of display corruption, and a normal display port (DP+) on a graphics card can't output to a dual-link DVI monitor without an expensive active Displayport->DVI adapter.

      --

      jh

    5. Re:Sweet! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You can do HDMI to DVI with a very simple, cheap adaptor. Or vice versa.

      VGA to HDMI or vice versa requires a complex, expensive adaptor.

    6. Re:Sweet! by v1 · · Score: 1

      I suspect you would have a difficult time finding a 2560x1440 panel that doesn't support HDMI.

      I'm not too technical with how VGA works, but doesn't higher monitor resolution require more (serial?) bandwidth? And hit some sort of wall of bandwidth when the resolution gets high?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    7. Re:Sweet! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      DVI as a connector seems to do everything HDMI can do along with VGA. Many video cards can output full HDMI over a DVI port and use a simple adapter (no active parts just a change of form factor) and do the same for VGA. Moving to a HDMI connector gives us less flexibility it should never be better except for size. I'll take a positively locking connector over HDMI's friction fit any day.

      Why would you buy a TV that only does 1920x1080 when you can get a higher res monitor? 1080P is not a lot of pixels nowadays it was the upper end of what they though they could do what 20 years ago when HDTV was being created? If anything the HDTV market is stagnating the pixel count on monitors.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    8. Re:Sweet! by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I've seen smaller TVs with 1440x900 for around 150€, the 1920x1080 smaller TVs are still over 200€. Given the same LCD panels are used in TVs than in monitors, I doubt resolution is a big problem. Especially in the cheaper monitor segment: those all seem to be 1368x768, 1440x900 or 1920x1080.

      Keep in mind that those TVs come with integrated speakers, at least one HDMI port, one VGA port and usually a scart connector. I've been thinking of getting one when the 1920x1090 models hit 150€, and use it as my main computer screen (I currently use a vintage 1280x1024, I really do prefer that aspect ratio as a PC monitor), but also attach my PS2 (yes, not PS3, I don't buy as many toys as I used to being married and all) and move it away from the living room. It means that TVs have better connectivity than normal LCD Monitors.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    9. Re:Sweet! by jawtheshark · · Score: 2

      I don't know for those very high resolutions, but classic 1080p works fine over VGA. Back in the CRT days, I used a 1600x1200 monitor over VGA just fine too.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    10. Re:Sweet! by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Why would you buy a TV that only does 1920x1080 when you can get a higher res monitor?

      Expense? The days of shelling out 500€++ for a monitor are over for me. I still use a 1280x1024 LCD panel as my main home computer screen.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    11. Re:Sweet! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's not even an adapter, it's a converter.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Sweet! by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      My two 3 year old 30" Dell monitors don't support HDMI, only DVI. I'm sure an adapter can fix that though.

    13. Re:Sweet! by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I ahve the same monitor. Two of them. There's adapters, but it's harder to find ones that will do dual-linkHDMI 1.3 (1.3 is required for > 1080p resolution)

    14. Re:Sweet! by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Not if you want greater than 1080p resolution. Those kind of adapters are expensive and hard to find.

    15. Re:Sweet! by adonoman · · Score: 1

      The current Dell 30" (U3011) has 2 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 2 DVI, and component inputs. At least in Canada, they don't even have the3007 WFP for sale anymore.

    16. Re:Sweet! by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      I have a pair of CRTs that run at 2048 x 1536 over VGA. I'm not sure what VGA theoretically tops out at.

      HDMI, however, tops out at 1920 x 1200, same as single-link DVI. For higher than that you need dual-link DVI or DisplayPort.

    17. Re:Sweet! by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Why would you buy a TV that only does 1920x1080 when you can get a higher res monitor?

      I have a pair of 2048x1152 monitors. That size seems to pretty much not exist any more, which just leaves 2560x1440 (or 2560x1600). Which are about 6x as expensive as 1920x1080, and which I've only seen online and not in physical stores.

    18. Re:Sweet! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      DVI does not have the pins to support HDMI's CEC and auxiliary data channels.

    19. Re:Sweet! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      At 29 vs 19 pins it does have the pin count to do it. I do not believe anybody makes a video card with cec output there are standalone boxes to inject it.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    20. Re:Sweet! by v1 · · Score: 1

      HDMI, however, tops out at 1920 x 1200, same as single-link DVI. For higher than that you need dual-link DVI or DisplayPort.

      Sadly I have trouble explaining this to people from time to time. "This 30 display looks nice but I have a bigger TV at home." "The TV will have a lower resolution than this display." "No, my TV is a 42" high def set." Aaaand so we have to try to explain resolution vs size. Some get it, some don't.

      We have an elgato hooked to the mac pro here, on a 30" cinema display, and we tune to one of IPTV's high def (1080) channels and show the window at "100%" size and show them... here, THIS is how much content will fit on your tv. With this display, you get all that additional space to the right and below the window.

      Some still don't get it no matter how we try to explain it. "Bigger is better" is all they can understand. The other nice thing we can try is to attach the HD tv here to the computer's other graphics port and show the arrangement panel, which will show the two displays side by side, by pixel size. And drag windows between the two displays. "why did the window get so BIG when you dragged it to the TV?" and then some have an "ahh ha!" moment.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    21. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if NPD is one of those trade groups that still has its panties in a bunch because DVI is unencrypted and could theoretically be used by pirates.

      i don't know what you are talking about DVI very well supports HDCP. and according to posts above this, it supported HDCP even before HDMI did.

    22. Re:Sweet! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx

      HDMI tops out much higher than 1920x1200.

      VGA, being analog, theoretically has NO limitation.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Sweet! by v1 · · Score: 1

      but are there any devices (specifically, LCD tv sets) that support better than 1080? that we can buy reasonably?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    24. Re:Sweet! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      No, HDMI tops out at 4096x2160. Admittedly, that's only at 24Hz. If you want 60Hz, I don't think you can do more than 2560x1600 over HDMI.

    25. Re:Sweet! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Outside of a few ARM development kits, you can't buy a PC with built in support for CEC, ethernet, or audio return. None of the graphics card manufacturers support such.

    26. Re:Sweet! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      4k TVs will be out this year.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:Sweet! by slew · · Score: 1

      The main reason that VGA is going to die is that it requires a DAC (digital to analogue converter) in the PC chipset and a ADC in the panel (along with multi-sync PLL timing circuits). Continuing to make high-quality high-speed DACs and ADC and multi-sync PLLs are silly when you can have a digital connection to the monitor which saves you area, pins and design time.

      There are 2 reasons DVI is going to die. One reason is a connector problem. PC system manufacturers save money by only having a DP connection to their monitor (not DVI or HDMI connectors and forcing everyone else to use dongles if they need DVI or HDMI). Laptop manufactures are space constrained and only want to support 1 connector (microDP or HDMI). The second reason is that vendors of computer specific panels don't want to have to pay a license fee to Silicon Image for TMDS (unless they have to). By only supporting DP on panels made specifically for the PC market, the panel vendors don't have to use TMDS (DP uses pci-e/ethernet-like 8b10b signalling instead of the patented TMDS) and save money.

      I don't think anyone ever really cared about unencrypted DVI. All "newer" PC graphics cards support HDCP encryption over DVI and MSFT's OS requires sensing that HDCP encryption is enabled on DVI before playing premium content over DVI. This is a non-issue unless you card is over 12 years old (there was a small window of time where there was unencrypted DVI) . If your old DVI monitor didn't support HDCP, you couldn't have played premium content on that monitor with any remotely modern graphics card or system. Nobody really cares at all about VGA capture cards (who has these anymore?). What intel and amd do on future platforms is moot in this area for most involved with DRM.

      On the projector issue (brought up by other folks), many modern projectors have HDMI/DP or are going wireless anyhow, so if your old laptop PC had an DVI output (highly unlikley because of connector space), you would need to use a DVI2HDMI converter on it anyhow... The only other standard connector was VGA which for these up-coming new laptops w/o VGA people will need to go out and buy wireless projectors (or HDMI/DP projectors) . Older dual-dvi or VGA projectors say used in home theater systems, well, let's just call that planned obolesence, AMD and Intel never did care about this market at all.

      It's really all just about system cost.

      In related news, computer manufacturers drop floppy disc drives from their new systems. Millions of users of floppy discs have their backup systems rendered obsolete. Thousands complain that the Software industry force computer manufacturers into this position to stop piracy. The outrage continues...

    28. Re:Sweet! by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      *Why would you buy a TV that only does 1920x1080 when you can get a higher res monitor*

      I don't think a 50" monitor is gonna be in the $1k range...

      Even at 32" a TV will be cheaper than a monitor.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    29. Re:Sweet! by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I have a pair of these I bought refurbished for less than $200 each. I'd love to find two more but they're getting thin on the ground. They're wonderful computer displays for the desktop user, and horrible for anything else. Forget about laying down on the couch and watching a movie, off-axis performance is TERRIBLE. But when you've got them pointed straight at you, they're quite amazing.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    30. Re:Sweet! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      HDMI only supports up to 1920x1200 resolution, so I don't think an adapter would help you (well, assuming you want to run native resolution). Well, actually HDMI 1.4 now supports higher resolutions, but if your monitors are three years old they won't support that.

    31. Re:Sweet! by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I've seen the trend (with comsumers) to simply buy a smaller TV with HDMI/VGA

      I'm in the process right now of upgrading my 19" and I wanted a 22 or 24" but maybe I'll just get a small TV since the laptop has an HDMI connector.

    32. Re:Sweet! by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      HDMI 1.3 supports higher resolution as well. But you're right, older monitors won't support that. And, like I said, my 3 year old Dell's don't even support HDMI.

    33. Re:Sweet! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I'm not too technical with how VGA works

      It's a pretty basic RGB analog video signal with seperate H and V sync lines (hence the acronym RGBHV), modern ports also have some control lines but you can get a video signal through without them.

      but doesn't higher monitor resolution require more (serial?) bandwidth?

      The minimum pixel rate in an analog video signal to acheive a given resoloution would be (horizontal resoloution)*(vertical resoloution)*(refesh rate), in reality the pixel rate will be a bit higher to allow for blanking periods between lines and between frames. So the pixel rate for full HD at 60Hz will be arround 126 megasamples per second, that makes the worst case fundamental* of the signal 63Hz. For decent quality you probablly want to cover at least up to the third harmonic of the worst case fundamental so for 1080p you need a cable that is good from DC to arround 200 MHz. That is well within what pretty much any half decent coax can do.

      There is really no technical reason that a "VGA" connection can't deliver a decent signal at very high resoloution provided all the components (source, target and cable) are of sufficient quality.

      * That is what the fundamental frequency would be if the screen was disabling alternating black and white pixels.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  4. So Long DVI... by camperdave · · Score: 1, Troll

    So long, DVI... I never knew ya. I've never hooked up, or to my knowledge even used a monitor that was connected via DVI, and now it's being phased out.

    It'd be nice if the summary mentioned what they'd be replaced with.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:So Long DVI... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No? Really? I've been using exclusively DVI for, huh, maybe five years now. I haven't owned a computer with VGA since 2006, and the big (30-inch) screen I just bought won't even work with VGA (it has a VGA hookup, but VGA won't drive all its pixels). DVI is a great standard. Even at work my two 19-inch monitors each use a DVI connection from the dual-port graphics card in my Dell tower.

      HDMI is okay, it does have that nice petite connector, but all the DRM bullshit means I will only use it when I have to, and I've never had to.

    2. Re:So Long DVI... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Yup, the only place I ever saw a DVI connector was on a few TV sets, but since nothing else ever has a DVI port, there is no point in providing it.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:So Long DVI... by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Then you really have been missing out or you've been using CRT monitors. DVI's been giving people pixel perfect output on their LCD monitors for years, and DisplayPort and HDMI have only relatively recently appeared to take over the roost.

      --

      jh

    4. Re:So Long DVI... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      HDMI on most desktops, displayport on Apple (With optional HDMI adaptor), mini-HDMI on tablets and ultrabooks where the full HDMI is too big. Electrically HDMI and DVI are equivilent, but HDMI has a smaller and more robust connector.

    5. Re:So Long DVI... by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      I've used DVI. It's been nice for monitors that got signal interference on RGB from noisy power supplies.

    6. Re:So Long DVI... by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Probably HDMI. DVI is a buffed up, HD capable VGA sized port. HDMI plays a similar niche for casual electronic enthusiasts, it is a port used by practically all electronics already and it is smaller.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    7. Re:So Long DVI... by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      DVI is actually an HDMI port minus audio plus a VGA port. But that's not obvious to the casual observer.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    8. Re:So Long DVI... by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Wow, do you work for my former employer by any chance? When I left there a couple of years ago they were still throwing out DVI cables and buying VGA cables because they had "standardized" on VGA. Especially annoying when half the computers had their VGA cables wrapped around bundles of other cables so tightly that you got all sorts of weird interference...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    9. Re:So Long DVI... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      DVI is capable of all the same DRM bullshit as HDMI. The only capability HDMI has that DVI doesn't is the ability to carry audio.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:So Long DVI... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Really? Every video card I've had since the early/mid 2000s has had a DVI port. My gaming PC has 4 on the back right now.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:So Long DVI... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Electrically HDMI and DVI are equivilent, but HDMI has a smaller and more robust connector.

      They don't have all the same pins. HDMI can carry audio while DVI can't, and DVI can carry analog video in addition to digital video while HDMI can only carry digital.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:So Long DVI... by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      So... DVI is kind of a step backwards? What is the point of it then?

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    13. Re:So Long DVI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVI came out many years ealrier, so if you want to think about it that way, HDMI was a step forward.

    14. Re:So Long DVI... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I just learned that today, here on Slashdot, from other posters like you. Thank you for being informative!

      Still, in my experience I have never seen DRM via DVI, and so basically my point stands. When I'm confronted by a difficulty which was set up on purpose by those I gave money to in exchange for entertainment, I stop doing business with those people, because they treated me unethically.

      Entertainment should be easy or GTFO.

    15. Re:So Long DVI... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      ... and remote control, and ethernet, and anything else carried on the auxiliary channel.

    16. Re:So Long DVI... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      So... DVI is kind of a step backwards? What is the point of it then?

      DVI came first. It's not that DVI is a step backwards as much as it was that HDMI was a step forwards.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    17. Re:So Long DVI... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Then you really have been missing out or you've been using CRT monitors.

      At work, none of the computers at work have DVI ports on them, not even the ones we got last fall. I doubt the ones we just ordered will have them either. Only the most recently purchased LCD monitors (ie 2010+) have them. Our TVs don't, and neither do our projectors or our KVM switches.

      I believe my monitor at home has a DVI input, but neither of my computers nor my KVM does.

      DVI is a pointless interface, just like those audio fiberoptic ports. Only a small handful of people will ever use them.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    18. Re:So Long DVI... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Uh, the point of DVI is that it existed before HDMI. DVI was designed in 1999. HDMI was designed in 2002.

    19. Re:So Long DVI... by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      I've got 10 year old monitors with DVI, and the sharpness improvement you get isn't something I'd ever go back on. I can think of a few at work that connect over VGA, but that's only because they're small form factor machines that only had VGA outs. At 1280x1024 or above, the softness you get over VGA compared to a digital output is noticeable. If you bought a basic GeForce 2 ten years ago you'd have a DVI output on your graphics card, so either your computer is a veritable relic, or you're relying on some weak onboard graphics and don't really care about your outputs. I mean that to the extent I've never bought an LCD monitor without a digital input.

      It's true to say the KVMs often are only VGA, but that's partly because KVMs are typically either cheap two port affairs for a desktop, or multiport designed for servers where noone gives a crap about sharpness.

      If you're not using DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort in this day and age on your desktop, you either have a cheap SFF machine, or you're stuck in the past. If you're okay with that, then good for you, but I'd personally guess that a majority of people with LCD monitors use DVI, and soon that'll change so that most people use HDMI or DisplayPort. You're really wide of the mark to think DVI was some sort of pointless minority sport.

      --

      jh

    20. Re:So Long DVI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have all the same pins. HDMI can carry audio while DVI can't,

      It's not an extra pin. HDMI is an extended version of single-link digital DVI. DVI sends no data during the video blanking period, so HDMI extended the protocol to send audio data during the idle time. As a result, most newer DVI ports support audio (nobody bothers designing separate and different controllers for HDMI and DVI when they're so similar). You probably can't find a DVI device which supports audio, but use a passive adapter to go from DVI to HDMI and you'll probably find that it will work.

    21. Re:So Long DVI... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It's pretty amazing that you've never seen them. I guess you could miss out if you stuck to CRTs for a long time, or only used the low-end LCDs that were VGA-only. However, DVI has been ubiquitous on both ATI and nVidia chipset graphics cards for something like 10 years now, dating back well into the AGP-era. Hard to believe that you didn't at least run into a computer with a DVI port at some time.

    22. Re:So Long DVI... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      It'd be nice if the summary mentioned what they'd be replaced with.

      They did: hdmi and DisplayPort.

  5. Adapters by NabisOne · · Score: 1

    ..and the adapter makers all rejoice!

  6. Great! just Great! by xmorg · · Score: 1

    so we can have even MORE "mix and match, and omg, i cant find the right connector so i have to go to office depot and buy a converter, what the heck is with these stupid monitor manufacturers and their nonstandard parts" moments...

  7. All about HDCP by TankSpanker04 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect the driving force toward HDMI-only is anti piracy efforts in the form of mandatory HDCP on any new display hardware.

    1. Re:All about HDCP by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree...

    2. Re:All about HDCP by Microlith · · Score: 1

      HDCP will work over DVI. HDMI is just DVI with a different form factor and audio/USB lines.

    3. Re:All about HDCP by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      I suspect the driving factor is saving the $3 that the redundant DVI connector and cable set costs, since they're all starting to put HDMI connectors on motherboards and video cards, and HDMI~=DVI.

      They're getting rid of VGA because it's not digital. If you don't think that's important, you've never bought a $5 pair of "digital stereo headphones".

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    4. Re:All about HDCP by TankSpanker04 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have been more specific...

      HDCP has evolved since DVI and it depends on the version of HDMI as to whether it fully supports it.

      "According to HDCP Specification 1.2 (beginning with HDMI CTS 1.3a), any system that implements HDCP must do so in a fully compliant manner."

      Souce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#HDCP

    5. Re:All about HDCP by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      *is* there usb over hdmi? I know they hacked it to support ethernet.

      as for audio, here's some semi-hidden truth: audio is multiplexed in (not literally but close enough) to the digital stream. ie, they take digital video (dvi is fine for that and *always* has been) and then they do a data stream *merge* and create a new binary stream that is a+v. audio comes from 2-channel spdif or multichannel dd/dts.

      here's the part that annoys the hell out of me (and should, you, too): those two streams did NOT have to be mixed. video could have gone down the cable in one wire set (like dvi) and audio could have been run in a single coax cable or fiber (spdif or toslink, which all modern home stereos support as audio inputs).

      this means that you ONCE did have control over your a and v. you could patch in or out, anything, at any time. no fancy equipment needed. running audio as audio wiring and video as video wiring is just two cables and it was never a big deal to run those 2 in the back of your stereo or tv console. the rgb multi bnc cable madness of analog video *was* nuts and did need cleaning up, but once you go digital, 2 small wires or 1 is not a big deal.

      but to 'content guys' they saw an opportunity to swoop in and fuck things up. they mixed the 2 physical streams into a new one and encoded it. 'hdmi-audio' is then born. and it sucks.

      you can currently get 24bit audio with 192k and higher bitrates on stereo. I suspect you can do full multichannel on a single coax cable, too; and perhaps on a higher grade fiber (not toslink) as well. there is still no reason to have to weave in audio to video and encrypt the whole thing as a 'secure bundle'. it really messes up higher end audio systems that use outboard DACs. getting audio out of hdmi is expensive and that is totally uncalled for.

      dvi is perfectly fine for video but if they are 'coming' for dvi, I bet they are going to try to cut out or cut back on digital audio (as regular pure audio, or as audio that accompanies a video stream). I actually care more about audio than video and so I really do insist on my audio stream staying separate. and its easy, today; you run a HTPC with an spdif-out sound card and you point your app's 'sound card' at the spdif card. if they are shooting for 'no more hdmi' I bet they are not long for 'no more spdif'. spdif is (can be) bit-perfect and so I realize its a continual annoyance to 'content creators'. I hope I'm wrong about a future attempt to grab digital audio as its own wiring (sans video).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:All about HDCP by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      important typo: 192k and higher sample-rate, not bitrates. 192k sample rate as opposed to 96k (which is considered very high res in music) and 44.1k which is redbook cd audio (still very good and even audiophile if done right).

      you can fit 24bit audio at that pro-audio level 192k samplerate on a single cheap toslink cable or a regular old 75ohm video grade cable (ie, spdif stuff). there was never a need to 'upgrade' audio pipes on our systems - that's my point.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:All about HDCP by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      DVI supports HDCP, so I doubt that is the reason.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:All about HDCP by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Replacing the BW of a Dual-link video port (DVI) for one video + audio (HDMI) only seems like the product of someone technologically impaired and/or looking for more royalty income.

    9. Re:All about HDCP by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      I don't WANT a separate audio cable. I find it convenient to have everything going over a single cable. I like plugging one cable into my laptop and getting both audio and video on my TV.

      In practice, it doesn't matter if they multiplexed audio and video or used separate pins. It's functionally identical to the user.

      In terms of audio, S/PDIF (and toslink) have severe bandwidth restrictions that result in HDMI actually being a far better format for audio. S/PDIF only has enough bandwidth to handle stereo losslessly; any more channels than that and you need to use lossy compression. HDMI has enough spare bandwidth in modern revisions that it can do lossless 7.1, such as Dolby TrueHD.

      In practice, I'm not enough of an audiophile to care; lossy DTS and lossless TrueHD sound identical to me. But the convenience of only having a single cable, THAT is worth it.

      In terms of getting audio out of HDMI, it's not that expensive. You can buy a 4x1 HDMI switch from Monoprice for $43 that will split the audio off and give you toslink or RCA coax audio split off the HDMI inputs. Of course, you're then limited to the subset of codecs that both S/PDIF and HDMI support, but for most people, that probably doesn't matter.

    10. Re:All about HDCP by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

      ADAT Lightpipe uses the same fiber and physical connectors as S/PDIF TOSLINK. It handles 8 channels of uncompressed PCM audio at 24 bit, 48kHz, for a totally unimpressive but sufficient bitrate of 9.2MBit. A slightly better quality ADC is needed on the receiving end of the signal due to the higher bandwidth, but is mostly the same.

    11. Re:All about HDCP by jimicus · · Score: 1

      It's a PITA if you want to run the sound through a separate home cinema amp.

    12. Re:All about HDCP by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Not when every home theater amp I've ever seen has HDMI inputs and outputs.

    13. Re:All about HDCP by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Amps generally last longer than that. Mine pre-dates HDMI.

    14. Re:All about HDCP by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      home theater DACs suck. multichannel DACS are inferior to stereo ones for regular 2ch audio.

      not everyone is awed by 5.1 or 7.x or 9.x. less is more when it comes to audio.

      hdmi audio is evil for so many ways. saying that it passes multichannel losslessly is no great thing. movie audio is not worth going crazy over anyway. audio audio is, but movie audio is very secondary to the movie event, itself (long tangent on that but many people do feel that audio on movies is less than 1/4 the experience of standalone music sans video).

      your laziness about 2 cables vs one should not deny me my right to route the audio thru MY gear. and that's just what MPAA has done with hdmi. reduced my choices.

      fwiw, 5.1 with dd or dts is more than enough for the 'home theater' experience. if you think that lossless audio on movies is a dealbreaker, you've missed the whole point of movie watching.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:All about HDCP by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      and coax can handle very high data rates, too.

      hdmi was NOT NEEDED to carry audio. it was an evil idea and once you look at it from tech angles, you can see how evil it was.

      nothing good came from it other than the 'single cable' concept which is about as lame a reason to encrypt as can be!

      "we'll let you run 1 single cable; but breaking A and V apart will be a royal bitch and we'll do everything we can to stop you"

      look at it from that POV and you see a whole different side to hdmi audio.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    16. Re:All about HDCP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came to this thread to see if anyone else shared my view there....

      I can go on with my day now :)

      What pisses me off the most is that they basically "Stole" from the standards developed in the interested of open communication. My view is that if you're going to be an ASS and lock everything down, start from fucking SCRATCH and eat the hard and true R&D costs to build your own.

      You didn't take you're ball and go home, you waited until I made a nice design and then you slapped your fucking chains around it and called it yours.

      Fucking pigs the lot of em.

    17. Re:All about HDCP by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Then you're already missing support for Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS HD.

    18. Re:All about HDCP by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      If you want to route your audio through your gear, then I don't see how HDMI is stopping you from doing that. Either your source device already has toslink, or you can use a cheap splitter that extracts the audio from HDMI and spits it out over toslink.

      Personally, I don't even bother with 5.1; I have a 2.1 setup and can't tell the difference between DD and uncompressed. But that doesn't make your strange HDMI hating any more logical.

    19. Re:All about HDCP by jimicus · · Score: 1

      So? It supports plain old Dolby Digital; the last time I had more than two speakers plugged into it was about 2006/2007.

      To be honest, it didn't seem to make much difference when I did. Maybe it's more noticeable if you watch a lot of action movies, but I was mildly surprised at how few things on DVD really seem to take full advantage of having the extra channels available even if they are mastered in Dolby Digital.

  8. Yay! by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    Guess I'd better get a few adapters...

    1. Re:Yay! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I wonder.....I suspect the next thing will be to come out with shiny new replacement for pci-express that won't accept "old" non-DRM cards.

  9. Ain't happening by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've still got serial ports. There are still motherboards with a parallel port, for goodness sake. VGA ain't going away anytime soon.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Ain't happening by Microlith · · Score: 2

      Sure it is. When the source of your video signal no longer includes a DAC to generate the VGA signal, there's no point in including the connector on the mainboard. If Intel and AMD are dropping VGA support for their integrated GPUs, then your only option will be an external GPU for VGA. And even then the significantly reduced usefulness of a VGA port means it'll be rapidly dropped from new monitors.

      We've still got serial ports. There are still motherboards with a parallel port, for goodness sake.

      I haven't seen a recent board with a parallel port. Even serial ports have been reduced to headers on the motherboard that you need to cable out (and even that's missing on some hardware.)

    2. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never seen a motherboard *without* a parallel port or serial. they're not connected, but they are there. hell, my two month old motherboard with the trendy eSata and DVI for six core chip has floppy and "game" port on it!

    3. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      to clarify, not connected to plug on exterior case, but certainly working and functional if ever needed.

    4. Re:Ain't happening by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup, and at work I just deployed a multi-million dollar COTS application that among other things has serial port interfaces to other devices.

      RS232 is the lowest common denominator - EVERYBODY uses it for non-consumer-oriented stuff. No drivers, etc.

      My state-of-the-art cable tuner that gets digital video off of coax after being transmitted to the house over fiber uses RS232 to change the channels.

      And that is nothing compared to the number of VGA-only monitors out there. Monitors can last decades - VGA won't be going away anytime soon. If they stop putting VGA ports on monitors tomorrow people will need to use VGA for 20 more years.

    5. Re:Ain't happening by subreality · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Parallel is disappearing fast; serial still has a useful niche as the ultimate in simple communications, so it has a reason why it's hanging on.

      VGA is completely irrelevant in the current age of flat panels. When's the last time anyone you know even considered buying a CRT? Analog video is dead, and good riddance.

      DVI will hang on for a while, but the high pin count (big connectors, bulky relatively expensive cables, complicated PCB routing) will cause market pressure toward DisplayPort, HDMI, and other lower pin count standards.

    6. Re:Ain't happening by redmund · · Score: 1

      Lower end motherboards (sub-$100) are the most likely to have serial and parallel ports these days. Most (but not all, unfortunately) mid-range boards will be free of those legacy connectors and I don't think I've seen a high end board with legacy connectors in the last 4-5 years, maybe more.

    7. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, I'm taking a break right now, from working on a serial connection project, to read and reply to this.
      Earlier today, I was working on an RS232 control system for a fancy club and bar.
      Serial is still needed and will be for a long time to come.
      VGA has been a lovely standard for making things just work in AV.
      DVI ... yeah, I've had some fun with it, but I much prefer it over HDMI or anything like that.

    8. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VGA is completely irrelevant in the current age of flat panels

      My 6-month-old flat panel didn't get the memo. Still chugging along at 1920 x 1080 over VGA.

      Monitor: VGA + DVI
      Laptop: VGA + DisplayPort

      Common connector: VGA

    9. Re:Ain't happening by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      I don't know what mother you're buying, but my 4 year old Asus P5K-E mother board does not have a parallel or serial port. This is fairly normal these days.

    10. Re:Ain't happening by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      How many high-end boards have you looked at? I can't find a single one that *DOESN'T* have a 9-pin connector on the board (usually labelled COM). Just attach one of these

      Also, get a load of this: Floppy port on a current-gen gaming board! What'll they think of next?

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    11. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this because the ports are memory-mapped in the i/o address space of real-mode x86, and so they, like the pci-to-isa bridge, are a part of all x86 chipsets whether physically manifested with connectors or not?

    12. Re:Ain't happening by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      When's the last time anyone you know even considered buying a CRT?

      My old TV stopped working. Sis' godmother offered to buy me a new TV. I said, "get yourself a new TV and let me have your old one", because CRTs are better for classic consoles (even more so because FUCK YEAH S-VIDEO, I hate that most new TVs lack that). Also, to hell with widescreens, it's just a scam to sell you less screen for the same "inches". The honest measurement of screen size is the area (width x height), not the hypotenuse. And in that sense, squarer = larger.

    13. Re:Ain't happening by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      If you REALLY need a direct serial or parallel port you can still buy a PCI card that has them. USB adapters are available, but won't work with some software that talks directly to the hw. Component video isn't the same as VGA, but it is possible to make an adapter that will convert one to the other (sync separator or injector is required).

    14. Re:Ain't happening by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      A PC game port? Really? Haven't seen one of those since the ISA card days. (I don't think Windows even supports it anymore.)

      I'm guessing it's actually something else, or you must have bought some wackass board designed for legacy DOS use.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    15. Re:Ain't happening by tayhimself · · Score: 1

      I don't know what mother you're buying, but my 4 year old Asus P5K-E mother board does not have a parallel or serial port. This is fairly normal these days.

      From the first page, last paragraph of your linked article.

      This board also doesn’t have parallel and serial ports, although one serial port is available through an I/O bracket that doesn’t come with the product.

      Parallel is getting hard to find though (not that I'm looking for it).

    16. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Reduced to headers"??? Every AT motherboard I remember working on had serial headers only and that was a time when serial mice were the norm.

    17. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until chipset Mfgr's, and the industry at whole, start dropping support for them, they aren't going away. We still use serial ports for console server management and out of band management. These aren't going away any time soon, unless they want to replace every server in existence.

    18. Re:Ain't happening by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Serial is still needed and will be for a long time to come.

      Yes, but is RS232?

      (In case you forgot, USB is serial)

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    19. Re:Ain't happening by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      My 4-year old flat panel does 1920x1200 over VGA or HDMI. However, I switch it between my desktop and laptop.

      Monitor: VGA + HDMI
      Desktop Computer: Mini-HDMI (with adapter to normal HDMI) + DVI [with VGA adapter]
      Laptop: VGA + HDMI

      I wonder which port I should use!

      Having said all that, using VGA with a flatscreen is a bad idea. To do so, you have to go through a digital to analog conversion (VGA output from PC) then an analog to digital conversation (VGA input on flatscreen) before finally displaying the image.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    20. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. VGA takes all the wonderful quirks of analog video systems like NTSC and combines them with the clean specification and architectural elegance of CGA on the 8088. If you're a consumer, then yes, it "just works", but if you're an engineer or device programmer it's an absolute fucking nightmare.

    21. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I have seen many motherboards without a parallel port. my single anecdotal remark has as much weight as yours. most motherboards nowadays do not have parallel ports and the rare ones that do tend to have them only as a bunch of headers requiring an adapter for the standard db25 connector.

    22. Re:Ain't happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite aware it is. I'm also quite aware that the USB -> DB9/25 converters don't all have nice chipsets in them that play the way you need for all the equipement you have to get working in some really weird places. It does do for some cheap ass customers though ;)

      As for RS 232, that'll also be around for a long long time to come. That's a good and bad thing.

    23. Re:Ain't happening by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Displayport to DVI adapter for $3
      Digital connection.

    24. Re:Ain't happening by omnichad · · Score: 1
    25. Re:Ain't happening by kesuki · · Score: 1

      serial ports are maintained for security reasons. VGA lacks DRM and for that it is being killed in the consumer market.

    26. Re:Ain't happening by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      My brand new 1080p home theatre projector has an RS232 port. So does my ARM dev board. So does my digital cable box from the cableco. So does my TV.... etc.

      I've noticed that some new devices will have something more modern than a DB9 port for RS232, but they still use them electrically as just a plain serial port.

    27. Re:Ain't happening by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not I just replaced by game-port-using Sidewinder Force Feedback Pro only a few weeks ago. I used an SB Live PCI card for the interface - my upgraded motherboard did not have PCI slots this time around.

      I imagine that windows will support it just fine though - XP did at least. Can't vouch for Win7.

    28. Re:Ain't happening by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Now, or in the future, an e-fuse somewhere in the support chipset may make those pins useless

    29. Re:Ain't happening by josath · · Score: 1

      Just picked three random motherboards off newegg, expensive, midrange, and cheap, and none of them had serial or parallel ports:

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131803
      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130582
      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138339

      Interestingly, the cheapest one does list serial and parallel headers on the board, so with the right adapter you could still get them.

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
    30. Re:Ain't happening by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Gamers still care about game ports because the best joystick ever made, the F-22 Pro, only plugs into one, even with the Stickworks conversion chip.

      I suppose one could convert it to USB using one of the available conversion boards. It has some 32 buttons though, counting hat switches, so it would be spendy, and if you've already bought the stickworks chip you might be inclined to get a motherboard with a game port.

      I have a Creative labs PCI card so that I can have a game port into which I can plug my SWF22.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      please post the model number of your high-end motherboard, and I'll tell you where the serial port is (and a few other legacy ports too, in most cases)

    32. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's the point, the header is there

    33. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes, it has serial. I'm talking about headers (and the support circuitry which your board has) on motherboard, you just need to plug correct adapter on the pins to get 9 or 25 pin or mini-Din

    34. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      those "headers" (and the support circuitry they have) are what I'm talking about, not whether there is plugs on the back. That motherboard has serial and parallel. And I'd need to see very large blow-up photo of the others to ensure there isn't header labelled "com1",

    35. Re:Ain't happening by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so two of your randomly picked boards have serial, the MSI http://www.msi.com/product/mb/P67A-G45--B3-.html#/?div=Detail and the BIOSTAR (which has parallel too!).

    36. Re:Ain't happening by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My guess is that we can thank the Windows XP installer, and the requirement that your RAID or SATA drivers must be on a floppy disk for the longevity of the floppy connector on so many gamer/enthusiast boards. Perhaps that may change soon.

    37. Re:Ain't happening by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen a recent board with a parallel port.

      heh, I ended up with paralell and serial ports on the back plate of my most recent board (a low end gigabyte Z68 ATX board, I don't remember the exact model offhand) without even explicitly looking for them.

      One thing I do notice is that the higher end a board is the closer to "legacy free" it seems to be, presumablly because they want the space for other things.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  10. So what's left then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh that's right, the thing that needs to do cryptic handshaking to check you're not one'a dem filshee peerates before considering whether it'll function properly or not. And you thought you got to own that hardware when you paid for it.

    I'm sorry, but that will not do. VGA and DVI remain hard requirements here for the foreseeable future.

    1. Re:So what's left then? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      DVI supports exactly the same DRM scheme. The only difference is that for DVI it's an optional extension that not all equipment impliments, whereas with HDMI it's a required part of the specification.

    2. Re:So what's left then? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      And there's no need to worry about that, because any file that requires HDCP for playback still won't work over a DVI link without an HDCP handshake.

      But then HDCP compliance is only relevant to your needs at all if you're a noob and a sucker. My gaming PC is HDCP-compliant but the feature will never be used.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Displayport by b.emile · · Score: 1

    Hopefully MS fixes its frosty piss issues with Displayport hotplug compatibility. We've got some 27" DP monitors here that will disconnect and rearrange all your windows every time the monitor goes to sleep. It's driving us nuts.

    --
    this space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Displayport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here, with 19" and 21" monitors. It's a real pain.
       
      Updating the video drivers seems to alleviate it but it doesn't make it go away.

    2. Re:Displayport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      27"? Now that's some serious DP!

    3. Re:Displayport by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      And with modern monitor shapes, it might even have as much as 600 vertical pixels!

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Displayport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff569890(v=vs.85).aspx

      Disable the TMMM, and that problem should go away. My DVI monitor also confuses Windows when it sleeps. I think it's just the implementation of the sleep function. Some monitors stay on to report they are connected, others actually turn off and look disconnected.

  12. And switch to HDMI? by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

    I had HDMI on my monitor, and on my PC. And it sucked.

    I swapped back to DVI for reliability's sake.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:And switch to HDMI? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of people complaining about reliability, is it just because the dumb little plugs come loose or is something else wrong with them?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:And switch to HDMI? by HerculesMO · · Score: 5, Informative

      The sync of an HDMI cable isn't fast -- it's slow. So if you swap to a HDCP protected stream and then off of it, the monitor will flicker or sometimes, not come back at all. Then you need to reboot.

      Just basically, it sucks. Read about HDMI handshake issues and you'll see what I mean.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    3. Re:And switch to HDMI? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like those tilt-bits in action! That was a "design feature" - better to have the whole thing break than make it easier to stick some kind of bus sniffer in-between. Of course, that was silly since by the time HDMI took off it became easy to build go-between hardware that would have no issues syncing (well, any moreso than anything else).

      One of these days enough hardware keys will get leaked and the HDCP system will be completely cracked. Then maybe we can implement a software driver or something and eliminate HDCP from the hardware layer entirely.

  13. RCA Jacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will RCA jacks for video be placed? Until then all this is about nothing, you let one technology though that doesn't do DRM then the whole stack of cards falls.

  14. Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I like DVI and have a monitor that uses it, going HDMI only is not a big deal. HDMI is just DVI plus a little extra, for audio, and the cost of that "little extra" is already negligible.

    This means that a DVI-DVI, HDMI-HDMI, and DVI-HDMI cable are the same price. I spent $5 on one a few years back.

    No difference! Unbunch your panties

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      No difference! Unbunch your panties

      Execpt my perfectly good* LCD monitor from six years ago doesn't have HDMI.

      I could accept ditching my six year old monitor in the name of progress if I really did think HDMI was progress over DVI, but it's not.

      *I bought it large at the time so it's still great by today's standards

    2. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      But we want to complain!!

      That, and it feels kinda good when our panties are bunched up just so...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    3. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it IPS and LED? If not its hardly perfectly good considering Dell sales are $250 on such nowadays...

    4. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adapters are cheap.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hdmi+to+dvi+adaptor

    5. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So buy an HDMI -> DVI cable. I fail to see the issue.

    6. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by freeze128 · · Score: 0

      OK, plug your HDMI to DVI cable into your pc and stretch it to it's limit.....

      The HDMI Connector pops out because it only has friction to hold it in place. VGA and DVI both have screws on either side. You think the military would stand for this?

      Give me screws, dammit!

    7. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have an HDMI-DVI cable for $5 - that's the parent's point.

    8. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      I don't stretch my cords to the limit. That's a great way to make connectors fail, regardless of screws.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      HDMI doesnt have DVI-A support

    10. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      "Execpt my perfectly good* LCD monitor from six years ago doesn't have HDMI."
      So buy a freaking DVI - HDMI adapter cable at Rat Shack!

    11. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      While I like DVI and have a monitor that uses it, going HDMI only is not a big deal. HDMI is just DVI plus a little extra, for audio, and the cost of that "little extra" is already negligible.

      This means that a DVI-DVI, HDMI-HDMI, and DVI-HDMI cable are the same price. I spent $5 on one a few years back.

      No difference! Unbunch your panties

      Except HDMI also interfaces with HCMI which is what content companies (RIAA, MPAA) really want you to have so that they can "close the analog hole". HDMI will also talk with HCMI devices, but announce that it is not HCMI and therefore block the content from the HCMI port. This is their ultimate goal. DVI was just a way to start towards that, and VGA was their enemy.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    12. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      And you don't have any adaptors? I have a drawer full of the damned thing-- video card upgrades always come with one, sometimes two.

    13. Re:Deep breath everyone. DVI==HDMI by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And does it have DVI? You can get a cheap adapter and the compatible signal will go right through. VGA? No, it's not that great. Especially if it's large. You're not getting perfect 1:1 pixel alignment and clear colors.

  15. 30 Years of VGA by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets hope that whatever follows has the same longevity as VGA. In a world where we've invented USB 3 times (USB, mini USB and micro USB) with non-compatible connectors in just 11 years, the future does not look as good.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:30 Years of VGA by Nick+Ives · · Score: 3, Informative

      All the three you listed are electrically compatible. You can buy cables with a different one of those three sized connectors on either end.

      The reason there are three different size USB connectors is for devices with different form factors. A mouse is fine for full size USB, a mobile phone will want micro-USB and something like a PS3 controller uses mini-USB.

      --
      Nick
    2. Re:30 Years of VGA by ratbag · · Score: 2

      Dumb question: why don't they all use micro?

    3. Re:30 Years of VGA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      USB and the mini and micro variants are a success story if anything. The plugs are electrically identical, just physically smaller, and they're industry-standard. Meanwhile Apple was coming up with all kinds of crazy stupid proprietary shit (going so far as the infamous Charger Resistor Trick) and many other manufacturers were making proprietary connectors for individual device models.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:30 Years of VGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because micro USB is a fragile piece of crap.

    5. Re:30 Years of VGA by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      VGA is not quite that different from USB as far as changing the pinouts. Try plugging a recent VGA monitor into a suitably old vintage computer. It doesn't fit because they stuck a new pin where a blank key position used to be.

      At least with USB, I can just fish a different USB cable out of my desk drawer and I'm ok. With the VGA incompatibility, you're more likely SOL.

    6. Re:30 Years of VGA by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      I like DisplayPort's chances, more than anything because of its royalty-free-ness.

      It's finally getting some market penetration in monitors and video cards too. It took a while for that ball to get rolling, but it finally is.

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    7. Re:30 Years of VGA by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      A bunch of phones were using mini-USB, including the RAZR, which is pretty small. There was really no reason to muddy the waters further with micro.

    8. Re:30 Years of VGA by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      It's not about "electrically identical" Its about being able to walk up to something and plug in, and not having to carry 3 electrically identical but physically dissimilar cables around. You might as well give me a peg board and alligator clips.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    9. Re:30 Years of VGA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Well you have to remember that this connector was originally designed for use with the heavy steel beige boxes of the late 80s/early 90s and it was updated to eventually work with razor-thin phones many times more powerful than those beige boxes. That it was done with only 2 smaller industry-standard connectors (one effectively replacing the other - miniUSB wasn't popular for long) being created in the process sounds like a success to me.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:30 Years of VGA by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      That's not really a new/old problem; even 'back in the day' I had that issue with some cables. The local computer shack carried adapters to get around it, right in with the 25 pin to 9 pin serial adapters and the Centronics to 25 pin SCSI doohickeys.

    11. Re:30 Years of VGA by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      the charger resistor trick isn't really much of a trick to get people to buy proprietary cables. I mean, the dock connector is a proprietary cable. It's meant to allow iDevices to charge at higher amps with out blowing the socket it's plugged into.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    12. Re:30 Years of VGA by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually Mini-USB was the fragile one and Micro was introduced because it's more robust.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    13. Re:30 Years of VGA by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Lets hope that whatever follows has the same longevity as VGA. In a world where we've invented USB 3 times (USB, mini USB and micro USB) with non-compatible connectors in just 11 years, the future does not look as good.

      Wasn't re-invented; just added to in order to support multiple form factors. You don't find mini or micro USBs on desktop/laptop/server computers. You also don't find USB on phones or tablets, or other small form-factor devices.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    14. Re:30 Years of VGA by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      A bunch of phones were using mini-USB, including the RAZR, which is pretty small. There was really no reason to muddy the waters further with micro.

      This has been previously discussed here. Supposedly the micro-USB design can handle something like 5-10x as many plug/unplug cycles as mini-USB before failure. I'll note that this doesn't match my experience, which includes 0 failures over dozens of mini-USB connectors in the last decade and now 4 or 5 failures of lightly used phone or tablet manufacturer-supplied micro-USB cables in the last few years. Maybe I'm just unlucky.

      Even more than the failures, though, my complaint about micro is that it's a pain to plug it in without looking at it. When I go to sleep at night, I often turn off my light before plugging in my phone, and micro's a pain. Mini was fine.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    15. Re:30 Years of VGA by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Try plugging a recent VGA monitor into a suitably old vintage computer"

      My 32" LCDTV works just fine with my 386, 286, and 8088. D-SUB 15 has no blank spots for keying. The blank spot for keying was on the montior cable itself.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:30 Years of VGA by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      There were plenty of female connectors on VGA cards without a hole in the key position. I have a couple in my basement.

      In fact, I had forgotten all about this issue until I recently tried to see if one of my old machines still works. The connector could not physically be plugged in, much to my annoyance.

    17. Re:30 Years of VGA by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

      I second your experience. The "More robust" micro connector might be rated for more cycles, but in reality seems to fail more often.

    18. Re:30 Years of VGA by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What are you plugging in? Often the device you want to plug is the one with the special connector. The other end is nearly always a standard USB for computers.

    19. Re:30 Years of VGA by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Snip the pin off if you don't care about the monitor losing higher resolutions. It will work.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re:30 Years of VGA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Inertia. People choose to use mini because they assume users will be familiar with it and already have cables and devices which use it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:30 Years of VGA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      VGA is not quite that different from USB as far as changing the pinouts. Try plugging a recent VGA monitor into a suitably old vintage computer. It doesn't fit because they stuck a new pin where a blank key position used to be.

      I have literally never seen a VGA connector with a filled-in pin, and I have probably seen thousands of VGA connectors from all eras.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:30 Years of VGA by doti · · Score: 1

      no, mini is.

      micro is actually 10 times toughter than mini.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
  16. HDMI fasteners? by planckscale · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One concern I have with HDMI are the connectors in PC's and how they are fairly easy to disconnect and damage. Also one of my HDMI cables became damaged because of a sharp angle. Sure there are adapters and alternative cables like these http://www.smarthome.com/81271/HDMI-Cable-with-Secure-Connection-Screw-in-Fastener-15-Feet/p.aspx , but they are not the standard. I've never really had a problem with screwing in VGA or DVI connectors except for the random stripped screw.

    --
    Namaste
    1. Re:HDMI fasteners? by lattyware · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why DisplayPort is the standard designed for PCs. HDMI is designed for TVs. DP cables have a locking mechanism that works well, without the annoyance of screwing in cables.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    2. Re:HDMI fasteners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DisplayPort has a great clip-on adapter. No screws that come off, screw in too tight, etc, but the clip still holds in tight.

    3. Re:HDMI fasteners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.extron.com/product/product.aspx?id=lockit&subtype=362&s=4

    4. Re:HDMI fasteners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duck tape? :)

    5. Re:HDMI fasteners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. I've broken off 4 mini DP connectors because of those goddamn clippy things.

      Worst design ever.

    6. Re:HDMI fasteners? by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, I have no experience of the mini connectors - so I can't comment on those.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  17. Half true... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    VGA has already been phased out. It takes effort to find a graphics card that supports it nowadays. The only products that use it are either embedded or are designed to support legacy hardware (projectors, etc).

    DVI, on the other hand, will probably be around for a long time, at least until replacemt has convincing reasons to cause people to switch. The blight of HDMI (inconsistent throughput for even the PALTRY 1080p in most cables) will certainly not replace the other two formats as long as their cost/length remains higher/comparable to DVI.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:Half true... by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Most video cards that have a DVI output also support a VGA output from the same port using a simple adapter that is often provided with the video card.. Video cards which have specificed DVI-D would not support the VGA output on that one though.

    2. Re:Half true... by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 1

      My company has just issued me with a brand new HP laptop (Sandy Bridge Core i5) that only has VGA out, not DVI or HDMI. Since video is all digital these days, it seems pointless to convert the digital signal to analog vga, then have the monitor convert it back to digital again.

    3. Re:Half true... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      The DVI connector has RGBHV signals on it - which is why you have DVI to RGB adapters that cost a pittance and are usually included with the graphics card. The VGA connector itself as that fifteen pin HD DB connector may not be there, but the signals haven't changed. Removing the RGBHV signals from the graphics card output removes the need to have that extra chunk of pins on the DVI cable and gives you (drumroll please): HDMI!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    4. Re:Half true... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Try buying a Atom D5xx based machine and see if it comes with DVI. Yes, HDMI, if you're lucky... Intel D525MW is the "top of the line Atom" (okay, I know, you know what I mean). VGA-out only.

      Many lower-end motherboards with integrated graphics ship VGA-only... Got a Dell last fall for work and of course there was no budget. Skimped everywhere... VGA-only...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    5. Re:Half true... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it never made sense to put VGA ports on video cards (or other output devices) once DVI was introduced.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Half true... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Huh I thought my 2009 model laptop was one of the last with only VGA output (which is fine for me, because I don't have any shiny new TVs, and my 1080p monitor and any projectors I may use have VGA-in).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Half true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a RadeonHD 5550 just a couple months ago that has DVI, HDMI, and VGA connectors on it. Was really easy, as there were a half dozen cards with the same chip with the same connectors on it listed on the page on ebay.

    8. Re:Half true... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It takes effort to find a graphics card that supports it nowadays

      Do you call going to the graphics card section on newegg and sorting by price effort?

      I don't think i've ever seen a PC graphics card that couldn't drive an analog monitor (though I have seen onboard graphics without anlog output both on PCs and embedded devices). Low end cards tend to actually have a VGA port on the card itself. Higher end cards usually require you to plug a passive adaptor into their DVI ports to get at the analog signal.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  18. What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HD BaseT? I was excited when I heard about it a while ago.

  19. DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards are not the best for sound and PC displays do not have more then 2 speakers any ways.

    Does any PC display with HDMI have some kind of DD pass though or 5.1 or more analog out?

    1. Re:DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVI carries audio. I have DVI going to my TV as a monitor.

    2. Re:DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards by danbob999 · · Score: 2

      video cards are not the best for sound

      What is nice with HDMI is that it is digital so the video card do not have to produce analog sound.

    3. Re:DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards by Nick+Ives · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards are not the best for sound and PC displays do not have more then 2 speakers any ways.

      Does any PC display with HDMI have some kind of DD pass though or 5.1 or more analog out?

      Video cards are as good for digital sound as anything. All they do is take the digital signal from your applications and send them digitally over HDMI. Barring driver bugs, it's just the same as any digital output on anything.

      I think for DD pass-through a device has to support DD. I have my 360 connected to my TV and my TV connected to my surround sound and DD5.1 works fine. My TV doesn't support DTS though, so I have to connect my PS3 directly to my surround sound in order for that to work.

      --
      Nick
    4. Re:DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards by sexconker · · Score: 1

      DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards are not the best for sound and PC displays do not have more then 2 speakers any ways.

      Does any PC display with HDMI have some kind of DD pass though or 5.1 or more analog out?

      Every single display (tvs and monitors) I've ever seen will only pass out a stereo signal over an unencrypted connection (including S/PDIF), regardless of what is in the HDMI signal.

    5. Re:DVI is HDMI without sound and video cards by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Technically, the DVI standard doesn't - your graphics card just sends HDMI-compatible signals over DVI. More or less the same thing. Connecting speakers to the screen (copying the audio stream out over optical) instead of the tower seems like it would be a great idea, though - shorter cords.

  20. This means I will have a motive to stick with old by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    This means I will have a motive to stick with old pc hardware even longer, to make use of my monitor

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  21. Study math much? by NixieBunny · · Score: 2

    2012 - 1987 = 25.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:Study math much? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      just got back from dentist, I'm flying on synthetic opiates.......

    2. Re:Study math much? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      2012 - 1987 = 25.
      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language

      Okay. So I forgot the tens digit.

      But ironically, 2012-1987 can be 36 in old Fortran (since one can assign values to numbers).

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    3. Re:Study math much? by Fned · · Score: 1

      So the camera adds ten pounds, but the dentist adds ten years?

    4. Re:Study math much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the only way to fly........

    5. Re:Study math much? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      his magic pills dilate the temporal flow of the space-time continuum

  22. In case anyone was wondering by overshoot · · Score: 2
    This is one of the things that happens when you have three or four video chip sources, including the ones embedded in processors and system logic.

    Ten years ago, there were enough other companies in the game that your chances of finding one supporting "legacy" interfaces was a lot better.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  23. It doesn't really matter. by lattyware · · Score: 2

    VGA has been dead for some time - even the cheapest monitors are starting to use DVI, so in 5 years, I can see it totally dying out - I mean, sure, some people will still be using it with older machines and older monitors, but in new ones, yeah.

    As to DVI? It's not a big loss to loose the ports. Even they start putting HDMI and DisplayPort everywhere, it takes a simple cable to go from HDMI to DVI or visa-versa. My monitors currently wiegh in at one with 1xDVI, 1xVGA, one with 1xDVI, 1xVGA, 1xS-Video, 1xComposite, 1xComponent, and one with 1xVGA, 2xDVI, 1xDP, 1xHDMI, 1xComponent, 1xComposite.

    I think 5 years sounds like a reasonable timespan to see the newer ports become big. That said, I see a lot of HDMI adoptation, but most of the graphics cards are still DVI and HDMI - the only machine I have with DisplayPort out is my laptop. 5 years is a lot of new graphics cards however.

    As to the replacements, I'm not going to complain. HDMI and DisplayPort are much nicer to plug/unplug than DVI cables - and no need to worry about dual-link or not. As to VGA - I havn't used it in a long time. Due to the HDMI/DVI compatibility, I don't really see this causing much hurt to anyone either.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    1. Re:It doesn't really matter. by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      VGA ports might be dead, but VGA cables are alive and kicking. Ever since DVI came out I've found it all-but-impossible to find DVI cables. The only thing anyone seems to sell are DVI converters and VGA cables. My DVI monitor from BenQ came with a VGA cable in the box and a list of contents including the words "DVI cable (optional)". I'll be happy when we move onto something with more availability.

      Hopefully those from other countries don't share this problem.

    2. Re:It doesn't really matter. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      HDMI sucks.

      Why? not because of HDMI.... Because of the worthless HDCP that is designed to make life miserable.

      HDCP keys, handshakes, etc all make hdmi distribution expensive. The low grade dog food stuff does not do Key caching and management.

      And god help you if you want to do a hdmi matrix. the ONLY company that has one that works is Crestron. Their DM switchers are the ONLY choice for a 16X16 or larger Hdmi switching that works.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:It doesn't really matter. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      By that logic, DVI sucks too - in fact, it sucked first.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    4. Re:It doesn't really matter. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not that HDMI or DVI sucks... it's the HDCP that sucks.

      Remove HDCP and digital video becomes a dream.

      In fact that is the best thing to do, buy and install HDCP strippers at every source point and all switching and routing issues disappear.

      But I cant do that, It's illegal in the usa. Soon you get to spend life in gitmo for even telling someone that such a device exists.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:It doesn't really matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm some of us are professionals:

      I have got a serverroom packed with networked kvm switches with nothing but VGA connectors.

      I would NOT like to go out and replace everything, because it is no longer possible to get hosts with VGA connectors :-(

  24. HDMI, uhg by FierstArter · · Score: 1

    Just the IDEA of having to use HDMI for all my video needs is sickening. I love the ability to move audio and video through one cable, but man. I can't think of a time that I used HDMI, with a computer, that didn't pose a little problem. Who am I to say though, I haven't used one in a few years. Maybe they have gotten a little better.

    1. Re:HDMI, uhg by cr_nucleus · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Displayport is here for the rescue !
      Plus, it's royalty free !

      About f-ing time we get rid of vga & hdmi on laptops.
      Mini displayport for all !!

    2. Re:HDMI, uhg by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Really? I've literally never had a problem. I run a triple monitor setup with two nVidia 210s, both of which have one DVI and one HDMI port, I use an HDMI to DVI cable to hook up my third monitor. I've also, in the past, when I had two monitors, had an HDMI switch and used lots of HDMI to DVI cables to hook up my monitors and PCs as I didn't have enough inputs, as HDMI switches are cheap, while DVI ones cost a lot. I've used my xbox 360 through HDMI to my monitor, and run my HTPC through HDMI to my TV, all of which work perfectly.

      What problems have you experienced?

      Also, there is always DisplayPort - which is designed for use with computers, as where HDMI is designed for TVs and media devices.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  25. MPAA by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until Columbia, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal, and Warner use whatever SOPA and PROTECTIP become to shut down the web sites and finances of the makers of such adapters.

  26. dp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dp ftw bitches!

  27. Projectors by ironjaw33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I travel to give the occasional presentation and I think I've only seen one or two projectors in the past 5 years that had something other than a VGA input. This is probably why many business laptops still have VGA outputs at the expense of providing others like DisplayPort, DVI, or HDMI.

    The other problem is that monitors and projectors long outlive their PC contemporaries. I've got a 20" Dell LCD that I purchased in 2003 that's still going strong today. It has VGA and DVI inputs, since only in the past few years have HDMI and DisplayPort become standard on monitors.

    I'm rather partial to DisplayPort and Thunderbolt since the connectors are smaller and don't have pins that are easily bent, but these outputs aren't too common in laptops, unless you have a Mac.

    1. Re:Projectors by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Most new projectors have DVI or HDMI inputs (my home cinema-type projector at home has two HDMI ports, a VGA port and for some reason RGB+Audio input (no, it doesn't have a speaker, that's the weird part)).

      Of course, I've also seen plenty of corporate projector installations where they deliberately buy projectors that only support VGA ("as cheap as possible" and "with VGA input because all our other projectors use VGA"). Creates some funny situations when one of the CxOs shows up to hold a presentation and he's only got adapters for DVI, HDMI and DP for his laptop...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Projectors by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Corporate projectors will often have a lot of different inputs, but as a general rule of thumb, the only cable connected will be VGA. For corporate presentations it's still VGA all the way. (Have seen Mac users learn this the hard way.)

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    3. Re:Projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jesus, update, to a led lcd dude, they use so much less power, it pays for it self.

      they are soo thin too and light, and 20" is small today, 24 is a great min size.

  28. It is in fact electrically compatible with HDMI by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    You can cross connect them without issue. Now they each support features the others don't. HDMI can do audio, DVI can't, DVI can do analogue, HDMI can't (of course the ports can be made to work either way), but the video signal is the same electrically.

    The real difference is just connector size. Also normal HDMI connectors don't do dual link, but that isn't such an issue these days as we can just use higher frequencies to get higher bandwidth.

    1. Re:It is in fact electrically compatible with HDMI by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      The connectors are the same physically, but the video signal is different electronically. DVI has dedicated channels for red, green, and blue. HDMI has three data channels that are generically used for audio and video, including other colorspaces and subsampling. Future high resolution displays can use increased pixel clocks for sufficient bandwidth, but dropping dual link support would leave existing dual link monitors unusable.

  29. Business use laptops and projectors by dogbertsd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may be that many of you in the home market won't miss VGA, but in most corporate offices, VGA is the only common connection supported by the projectors in most conference rooms. While an adapter is an option, I suspect that laptops marketed to businesses will have VGA adapters for longer than the next five years as the refresh cycle for projectors is generally much longer than the refresh cycle for laptops.

    1. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Troll

      "VGA is the only common connection supported by the projectors in most OUT OF DATE conference rooms."

      Fixed that for you.

      If your conference room does not have HDMI, then it needs to be updated. if you bought a conference room upgrade in the past 2 years and it only has VGA, it was installed by or designed by a moron.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are you also going to supply us with the money for that upgrade. I would rather keep my employees employed than upgrade something that works fine as is thank you very much...
      also, you sound like youare watching to much HDTV... gotta have everything updated... you may as well chastize us for not having granite counter tops too.

    3. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by MROD · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wrong, just plain wrong.

      There is little support for HDMI within the seminar room equipment available, it's practically all VGA only. It's only very high end kit which has HDMI support.
      If you add to that most, if not all, "presenter" units (that is the back-lit camera systems people can use to show objects or hand-written notes) are VGA output only, the only real solution is analogue video, even though it doesn't travel long distances well (though this can be worked around with video senders).

      The reason I know this is that only a couple of years ago I was on a committee running the kitting out of some lecture theatres and seminar rooms. None of the tendering A/V companies could supply a complete system using DVI, HDMI or any other digital video technology even though we asked them to look into it.

      VGA is *THE* de-facto lowest common denominator computer video format, it's likely to stay that way for a *VERY* long time.

      --

      Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
    4. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow are you wrong. I work for the LARGEST integration company in the United states as a systems and integration programmer and all the equipment from low end commercial to high end have hdmi. It's all we have installed for the past 2 years, From small board rooms with a single projector to everything a university has in 12 buildings covering a 64X64 hdmi distribution switcher.

      Low end Sharp, Epson and Panasonic projectors all have hdmi on them. All the "presenter" systems we sell have hdmi on them and work just fine. Granted we refuse to sell the low end junk so we stick to smart and crestron. Although we have not had anyone ask for a presenter system in a year as they all want the new smartboard systems. Smart is the king of the presenters and they are all hdmi/dvi (Dvi-> hdmi is a connector change nothing else)

      Your information is not only out of date, bot the companies you dealt with were so bad at what they do they fed you a line of bad information.

      The only time we install ANY VGA is at the customers request, and typically it's with a scaler to take that VGA input and turn it into a HDMI signal for the rest of the system.

      I am sorry the companies you dealt with were not up to speed in technology, but HDMI has been available for 2 years now on everything needed. Yes if you cheap out and go with lowest bidder and then "value engineer" the system down to where it barely works, you can get a junky VGA only system.

      VGA is dead, not because it's a bad format or old format, but because the RIAA amd MPAA wants it gone, and they have far more pull with the equipment makers than you do.

      Lumpy is right, sorry that you were fed a line of salesman froth and believed it.

    5. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Why replace all the equipment in conference rooms if they still work just fine for what they are used for (boring presentations :) )? Why does it need to be updated if it doesn't have HDMI?

      It seems like this is almost like arguing that if your school uses Edition 15 and Edition 16 comes out, you need to update. Because the publisher doesn't keep getting money otherwise...

    6. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who hasn't worked in the corporate environment...

    7. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      When all you are using a projector for is displaying powerpoint presentations, why would you spend money in upgrading it?

    8. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it meets all their needs without any problems, it is not out of date.

      At least your company would have lots of the latest and greatest stuff to auction off at their liquidation.

    10. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by ilo.v · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Most OUT OF DATE conference rooms" = "most conference rooms"

    11. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "VGA is the only common connection supported by the projectors in most OUT OF DATE conference rooms."

      Fixed that for you.

      If your conference room does not have HDMI, then it needs to be updated. if you bought a conference room upgrade in the past 2 years and it only has VGA, it was installed by or designed by a moron.

      Want to buck up to update over a 1000 (more or less) out of date "conference rooms" in a typical school district?

    12. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you can give us the funding for a new projector I'm sure then one can be purchased.

      Many companies are still watching their budgets and having to replace a working projector just because someone has decided to eliminate VGA ports will upset many.

    13. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your conference room does not have HDMI, then it needs to be updated. if you bought a conference room upgrade in the past 2 years and it only has VGA, it was installed by or designed by a moron.

      When you grow up you will realise that in the real world you have to assume that when you bring your laptop to someone else's conference room to give a presentation there is an 80% chance it was installed by a moron. And there's nothing you can do about it, so plan for that scenario or the intended audience will remember you as the guy who couldn't even mange to connect his laptop to the projector.

      Where I work only VGA is available in the conference rooms. I'm sure the projectors have quite a few different types of connections but they're way up there on the ceiling and the only thing they've installed a cable for is VGA. Btw, my private laptop and my netbook only have VGA out, and they're not that old. The netbook was bought in 2011.

    14. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "If your conference room does not have HDMI, then it needs to be updated."

      HDMI has shit distance. I can push 75feet over VGA at high resolutions without issue. Can't do that with HDMI.

      This is why VGA is still the lowest common denominator. In large conference rooms where the computer is on one side and the projector is in the middle of the room (usually on a table) and projecting the rest of the distance, HDMI just isn't cutting it very easily.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:Business use laptops and projectors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually HDMI is losing out in the computer market to DisplayPort. I'm guessing your company will make a lot of money retrofitting the obsolete HDMI-based systems you have installed.

  30. lot's of projectors are cabled for VGA only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    projectors do have DVI but in lot's of places they are only cabled for VGA and even some switches / splitters are VGA only.

  31. VGA, what VGA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've already phased VGA out of my computer setup. So, I have no problem with this going away. Much too analogue for my tastes. DVI, on the other hand, should stay for a while. Many new monitors still support it, but not HDMI or DisplayPort. Of course, it's always nice to force the consumer to buy a new monitor when the old one is just fine.

    1. Re:VGA, what VGA? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      there is a vga signal in dvi

  32. All To Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If HP and DELL get into the mix and put their minds to it there could be a serious lack of DVI and VGA. The masses don't build their own computers. They don't look at parts or connectors or think about how cumbersome HDMI can be. They buy what is on sale at Best Buy who prays to the retail gods that enough people buy a laptop bag and protection plan to go with their new computer.

    If the big name manufacturers offer a better deal to retailers, not to mention more opportunity for upsell or higher margin cables, why would the retailers not take it? Who cares what the best option for the consumer is?

  33. What's next? by Psychophrenes · · Score: 1

    What are they planning to replace it with? Not Display Port I hope?
    Unless you love the new "random dual-screen display", that is.
    Plug 'n play on a monitor is a great idea, but terribly badly implemented so far...
    In Windows XP, switch off your main monitor and the second one becomes main. Great!
    Switch the first one back on and... the second one remains main!
    Switch the second one off and... you've got no main monitor anymore!
    I had dual Display Port for a week at work before I asked for DVI adapters, which makes my configuration work perfectly.
    So no way I'm switching to that unless they improve the current implementation.

    1. Re:What's next? by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      That sounds an awful lot like a software problem.

      I've had no such weird issues with OS X or Linux.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:What's next? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 2

      That was a Windows issue, not a Display Port issue. It work perfectly with up-to-date OS.

    3. Re:What's next? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      God no, we bought a load of Dells with displayports and Windows 7, and you get the same problem.

      Hell, I even picked up the monitors physically and swapped them over once, only to reboot and have the buggers still show the main display on the right-hand monitor. They're evil I tell you.

  34. you worry about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    still trying to find a computer without the computrace:-) and you worry about this?

  35. Image Constraint Token by tepples · · Score: 1

    The BD-Video standard already specifies an Image Constraint Token or "blur bit" that will cause the scaler to downscale the image to EDTV resolution (480p, 540p, 576p) over analog or cleartext digital outputs such as VGA or "component" (YPbPr over RCA) output.

  36. Had a heck of a time finding a DVI cable by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    Looks like the phase-out already started. I set up a computer for my parents over the holidays and we had to drive all over to find one. Only one I found was an overpriced gold-plated Radio Shack model.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Had a heck of a time finding a DVI cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of ebay? They sell at $2 with free shipping from china.

    2. Re:Had a heck of a time finding a DVI cable by pz · · Score: 1

      Monoprice.com is your friend.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:Had a heck of a time finding a DVI cable by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Thanks Captain Obvious and Boy Wonder, but I needed one THAT DAY.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Had a heck of a time finding a DVI cable by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      They are. If you can wait. If you need it today, then Monoprice is not your friend. Monoprice will take a week or two to get your stuff to you with the default shipping options. You can pay for faster, yes, but that often counteracts most of the price advantage.

    5. Re:Had a heck of a time finding a DVI cable by Fned · · Score: 1

      Hence the gold plating and "convenience fee" pricing.

  37. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can pull video cable up the back of a workstation without it catching on every god damned cable, wire, footstool and purse in the remote vicinity.

  38. I dont think so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DVI is used heavily in commercial video because the connector was not designed by a retard, unlike HDMI. IT has capture screws so that the connection is secure.

    hdmi and displayport are consumer craptastic ports that are 100% useless to commercial video world.

    1. Re:I dont think so.... by lattyware · · Score: 2

      DisplayPort has a self-latching connection. In my experience, you'd be ripping out your graphics card before you disconnected it.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  39. cheap converter cables will be made for another 20 by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    As soon as they do this, expect a surge in cheap converter cable production coming from the Far East.

    The more you tighten your grip, etc. etc.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  40. Try high-speed HDMI cables by tepples · · Score: 2

    The blight of HDMI (inconsistent throughput for even the PALTRY 1080p in most cables)

    A "standard" HDMI cable is guaranteed only up to about 1 Mpx per frame, or 720p. A "high-speed" HDMI cable can do four times that: 1080p 3D or 1440p.

    1. Re:Try high-speed HDMI cables by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      High speed cables are actually rated for 4K. At 24Hz standard-depth colour, anyhow.

    2. Re:Try high-speed HDMI cables by tepples · · Score: 1

      High speed cables are actually rated for 4K. At 24Hz standard-depth colour, anyhow.

      But do both dedicated and PC-based players actually output 24 Hz, or do they automatically apply 2:3 duplication to 60 Hz? And do monitors accept 24 Hz correctly?

    3. Re:Try high-speed HDMI cables by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Yes (they can output it), and yes (monitors accept it). I can't tell you what the monitors actually do when they get the 24Hz input signal, but the computer can output it, and the cable can support it. It's fairly typical in a home theatre environment to output video at 24Hz or 30Hz to the TV, to avoid judder.

      The player support isn't required, although using EVR-Sync in MPC works very nicely with it. My Dell U2711 supports 24Hz input (as does my projector), and the nVidia drivers are happy enough to output that (as a custom resolution, anyhow).

      Dedicated players (like a bluray player) often have an option to do 24hz output. The PS3 does too.

  41. Let me Google that: home theater pc 5.1 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Does any PC display with HDMI have some kind of DD pass though or 5.1 or more analog out?

    The first result from Google home theater pc 5.1 was "How to Connect 5.1 Speakers to Your PC" by Gabriel Torres.

  42. Raspberry Pi by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Funny

    And people complain that the Raspberry Pi (which is not even out the door yet) doesn't support VGA... sheesh.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Raspberry Pi by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The best way to save money is to be compatible with slightly obsolete technology. I'm sure there's lots of LCDs out there which only have VGA imports. So when considering buying a $25 toy, whether it'll work with stuff setting next to the nearest dumpster, or will require $200 in accessories, is a big consideration.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Raspberry Pi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While you're correct, I've got two 19" LCDs from yard sales in the last year. One was free and the other cost $10. I forget which, but one of them has DVI input. LCDs are finally getting cheap as people ditch their dying desktops for laptops. There should be another wave of this in a few years when OLED TVs become affordable and people ditch their old televisions, but it will be bigger screens and the deals won't be quite as astounding.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. So why keep them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DVI connectors stick out the back of PC's way further than HDMI or DisplayPort. I have lost count of the number of DVI connectors bent on my systems at work. The screws get bent and are a PITA to remove.

    DisplayPort uses a push-to-release connector lock that works flawlessly. I have NEVER had an issue with DP or HDMI working.

    DVI never really made the market penetration that VGA did. People still use VGA connections (they just don't know better), and leave the DVI connectors in the box.

    All that being said, lets focus on one standard and use it. Besides, since they have stated a date to kill it by, then I expect it will be gone before then. Cell phone manufacturers standardized on Micro-USB for connectors, and that has worked out just fine. Every phone and tablet in my house can use the charger from any other phone or tablet.

    FYI: All of you people who say the parallel port or serial ports are on you "New" motherboard, check out the actual production date of your board. Also, to the knucklehead who claims to have a GAME port on his mobo, I need pics. I haven't seen one of those outside of a junk box in years.

  44. Dont you mean "HOF" instruction set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

    1. Re:Dont you mean "HOF" instruction set? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he's referring to this.

  45. Wow just shit everywhere by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    Shit summary never even giving a hint WHY, and what a shit article which only reasons it eludes to is thin laptops (whoppie shit laptops have had tv ports on them for over a decade, doesnt mean I am using an svideo or component monitor now) and that DVI has no upgrade path, which the very next sentence talks about a (minor) upgrade to DVI

    Then after its advertisement for a thinkpad it says HDMI is less than ideal for PC use (so why would it replace real connectors on anything outside of subnotebooks that salesmen use for piecharts) and all of this doesn't matter anyway cause there are adapters available

    pointless rambling SHIT

  46. Doesn't surprise me... by mitcheli · · Score: 1

    With everyone switching to tablets and the traditional PC market on the decline, there's no need to hook up a monitor.

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
  47. Scientific research then depends on piracy by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    So I just had a funny thought in response to your accurate and insightful post. Scientific research is depends on widespread piracy of the "content industry."

    There are any number of scientific projects that require acquiring large amounts of audio and/or video data -- think speech research, anything in experimental psychology, many things medical, and so on. Back in the day, this work required really, really expensive studio-grade equipment or "rolling your own" by writing your own drivers for A/D and video capture cards. But our good friends at Sony made that stuff really cheap.

    But why is that stuff cheap. As you say, the non-content industry violating use of the Sony gear is .1% of consumer use, and the number of experimental scientists using that gear in their work is .1 percent of .1 percent of that small number.

    But the only reason this equipment is cheap and plentiful to the scientists is because of consumer demand -- if the scientists were the only market, the cost would be 10 to 100 fold more for the same gear, as it was back in the day. And the only reason Sony is that low on the cost curve is because of the demand for their recording products to violate the rights of the Content people.

    Hence scientific research takes place by ripping off Mickey Mouse.

    1. Re:Scientific research then depends on piracy by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Fuck Mickey Mouse. May Disney die a horrible death.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  48. That sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather that HDMI were phased out in favour of VGA and DVI!

  49. Oy by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    First, they quit selling 16:10 panels because it's cheaper to make 16:9 panels.
    Now, they're taking away DVI ports because fuck you that's why.
    When are they just going to take away our monitors all together?

    1. Re:Oy by mjwx · · Score: 1

      First, they quit selling 16:10 panels because it's cheaper to make 16:9 panels.

      Except they haven't. 16:10 panels are the high end of monitors. I'm typing this on a Dell U2412M, 1920x1200 24" monitor I bought two months ago. If you want a 16:10 panel, they're easy to get, just not as cheap as a 16:9.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Oy by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Dell used to have a ton of 16:10 monitors, as well as most of the market, now you're limited to a few select models. This model wasn't announced until later, and every smaller iteration of it at release was 16:9. Basically, only the largest and most expensive version was 16:10.

  50. computer monitors by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Before HDMI, DVI was the digital connector of choice for decently high resolution on computer monitors.

  51. Amortizing Monitor Investments by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    I need VGA or DVI support until my current LCD monitors fail or are surpassed by glasses free, no headache, uber 3D capability (yeah right). I imagine that many businesses and the government are in the same boat. If that support has to come via an external HDMI to DVI/VGA adapter, well, we've been there before (DVI to VGA).

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
    1. Re:Amortizing Monitor Investments by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      well, we've been there before (DVI to VGA).

      Note that there is a difference between wiring adaptors and actual signal converters.

      A DVI-I connector (which is what you find on most equipment) has both analog and digital signals. The analog signals are compatible with VGA and the digital signals are compatible with HDMI. So you can connect a DVI-I device to either a VGA device or a HDMI device with cheap wiring adaptors.

      But if you want to connect a VGA monitor to something that only has a HDMI output (or a DVI-D output) you will need a far more expensive active converter. Afaict those are sufficiently expensive that you can sometimes find whole monitors on special offer for not much more.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  52. why phase out LOCKS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My SATA connectors lock. You may have the ghetto version?

    1. Re:why phase out LOCKS? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      My SATA connectors lock. You may have the ghetto version?

      The crappy cables which came with motherboards. I went to teh computer bits store (Frys) and got some better ones, but the early SATA-1 and SATA-2 often came with connectors with no locking and were very loose. Not like those good ol' Parallel ATA connectors you needed to brace your foot on something firm to get enough leverage to disconnect.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:why phase out LOCKS? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I have never gone out of my way to pay a lot for my storage gear and yet I've never had this sort of problem. The "ghetto version" seems to be find too.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:why phase out LOCKS? by makomk · · Score: 1

      The locking part isn't actually part of the SATA connector standard. As far as I know it's just something that some cable manufacturers jerry-rigged on when it was obvious the existing design was unworkable.

  53. easy solution, HDMI/DVI adapter by Chirs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since DVI-D is just HDMI minus the audio, you can get cheap passive HDMI-to-DVI adapters. They work fine for connecting DVI monitors to HDMI video sources, or vice versa. No quality loss.

    1. Re:easy solution, HDMI/DVI adapter by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Actually, DVI-D does have the audio. There are no additional pins required for it. I have a TV with a DVI interface and I was surprised when I found that it was playing audio from my HTPC over the DVI connection.

  54. use different HDMI cables/adapters by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Monoprice has cheap 1-foot HDMI pigtails for this purpose so that if the cable gets damaged you just replace it. You can also get HDMI male/female 90-degree and hinged adapters.

  55. HDMI to DVI adapter by Chirs · · Score: 1

    HDMI and DVI are electrically compatible, adapters are cheap.

  56. projectors are expensive and last for many years by Chirs · · Score: 1

    I have an 8-year-old projector with only DVI that still works fine. I drive it from HDMI sources via a passive adapter.

  57. Re:Sweet! NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the Dell U2711 that can go to 2560x1440, but only on the DVI port, when driven with HDMI the max resolution is 1920x1080.
    This is from the same port on the video card with a DVI to HDMI converter. So a dual-link DVI is mandatory to get the higher resolution on this monitor.

  58. That's all well and good... by thatbloke83 · · Score: 1

    ...But my triple monitor Eyefinity setup won't work when using HDMI.

    So I'm assuming that over the next 5 years, while this is phased out, monitors will be replacing their VGA/DVI ports with DisplayPort ports, so I don't need a £30 adapter to convert a miniDP port to a DVI port... right?

    Maybe I'm being somewhat pessimistic, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

  59. ISA by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Even better, you can still get motherboards with ISA slots on them...

  60. 3G-SDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 3G-SDI doesn't care about your deprecated ports.

  61. There are DisplayPort-to-* converters by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 4, Informative

    DisplayPort can be converted to HDMI or single-link DVI with a cheap, passive adapter.
    You can also convert it to VGA or dual-link DVI using active adapters (they show up to the computer as DisplayPort devices).

    1. Re:There are DisplayPort-to-* converters by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It should be pointed out that while the DP to VGA adapters are active, they're still bus-powered (so they're dongle-sized with no power brick), and really cheap (like, $13 cheap).

    2. Re:There are DisplayPort-to-* converters by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      DisplayPort can be converted to HDMI or single-link DVI with a cheap, passive adapter.

      However, DisplayPort can be converted to dual-link DVI only with not-as-cheap, but universally shitty-quality active adapters.

    3. Re:There are DisplayPort-to-* converters by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I misspoke. Not truly active adapters, but they are bus-powered (and I've yet to see a brand without an extremely high failure rate).

  62. The Future is Gigabit Ethernet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Future is Gigabit Ethernet (or better?). HDMI is only the current standard.

  63. Another way to get our money by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    I've been looking at converters ever since the announcement of the Raspberry Pi. It looks like it's going to be nearly $100 just to use the old SVGA touch screen monitor that I picked up for free. Great! Now I can pay $100 for all the other monitors I want to continue using too?!? I think I know where they can stick those HDMI connectors. Of course that "it's smaller, thinner" comment at the beginning of the article probably sold the idea to a lot of readers.

  64. Woohooo!!!! Hard Rubbish collecting, here I come! by jampola · · Score: 1

    Yep, I can see it now! In 5 years time, me, with a beat up trailer, cruising the burbs picking up free LCD displays before the rain hits!!!

  65. KVMs by ticker47 · · Score: 1

    I want to know how this is going to effect KVM switches. Do they support HDCP and will they increase in cost if they are required to for this? I haven't done any research on the topic so I really have no idea.

  66. HDMI is inferior ot DVI by Skapare · · Score: 1

    HDMI can't do 2560x1600 at all. If they want to phase out DVI, they need to replace it with something, and that isn't HDMI. FYI, HDCP works on both DVI (it worked here first) and HDMI. HDMI is just one channel of digital video, with audio added on (that is a plus) whereas DVI is two channels of digital video, plus a channel of analog video (we don't need this part anymore). If they could re-purpose the analog video wires to be digital audio, then we'd have the replacement, called DVI++ or DVI-v2 or DVI-ng or whatever you want to call it). They make DVI to HDMI cables, so there's never been an issue making a digital TV work as a monitor.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:HDMI is inferior ot DVI by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx

      HDMI does HIGHER than 2560x1600. Try to keep up.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:HDMI is inferior ot DVI by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      HDMI can, as of v1.3 with high speed cables, do 2560x1600 at 60Hz. So there isn't really much need for a "dual link" version of HDMI.

  67. Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let me be the first to welcome our wireless hdcp compliant overlords!

  68. Going to disagree. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    I can MAYBE see VGA disappearing, but DVI is going to be here for awhile longer.
    Yet another hardly thought out "Oh my God the times are changin'" article.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Going to disagree. by itsdapead · · Score: 2

      I can MAYBE see VGA disappearing, but DVI is going to be here for awhile longer.

      Nope - in the same way that the 3.5" floppy outlived the Zip drive, I'd wager that VGA will outlive DVI. As others have pointed out: there is a shedload of presentation kit in offices and conference suites that uses VGA, and very little that supports DVI. Consequently, lots of current laptops offer HDMI and VGA connections - its DVI that has been dropped. Ditto monitors: HDMI + VGA is quite common. My TV has HDMI and VGA inputs, not DVI (of course, DVI to HDMI is a simple adapter job).

      When I travel with my MacBook its the MiniDisplayPort-to-VGA adapter I take, not the DVI one.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:Going to disagree. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I suppose. But I'm looking from the perspective of computer monitors.
      More and more, I'm seeing VGA less and less, and seeing VGA -> DVI adapters packed in.
      On the same token, the MAC (mini? I don't remember exactly what it was) I bought...3 years ago? To work on iPhone games only had DVI ports.

      I do agree on some of your points though, i've yet to see a laptop or a projector with a DVI port.

      --
      What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  69. Maybe for integrated only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is AMD/Intel phasing it out, it sounds more like they're just no longer supporting it for the integrated graphics that are on the die. I highly doubt AMD's GPU division and Nvidia would remove it from the actual graphics cards, considering there are a ton of gamers who sink thousands of dollars into monitors.

  70. Try telling that to the Chinese by greggman · · Score: 1

    I gave a talk in China last summer in Shanghai. All the projectors required VGA and no one running the conference had a DVI adaptor. They basically claimed DVI is not used in China !?!??!

  71. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the days of using my 22" flat screen VGA-only CRT monitor are numbered...

  72. Industrial PC's by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    There are STILL a limited number of industrial PC motherboards being made today that have ISA slots! This is because of a small niche market that requires them. These MB's are not cheap as they require custom ASIC's to be produced. The same thing will probably happen with VGA hardware.

  73. So it starts by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    Another step to take the personal out of the personal computer. - Or eventually kill it altogether. The beginning of the end.
    "We will control your internets and computers!"

  74. Is this really needed? by mordred99 · · Score: 1

    The issue might be DRM, it might be something else, but for me, I have a nice KVM I use. 4 PCs connect via VGA and PS/2. It all works and connected to my 3 monitor setup. Yes I can do this with a current HDMI splitter, but how is the keyboard and mouse copied over? I have to have one for video and one for the rest of the KV. I know they might have something else out there, and in 5 years it might be cheap enough, but the main question is WHY? My 24" monitors will still work (they have HDMI, I made sure of that when I got them) but why would others who were not as forward thinking have to throw away perfectly good monitors (yes there are converters, but most people don't think of that, they just go to best buy and talk to pimple boy #56). Oh well. Welcome to the world of content control.

    1. Re:Is this really needed? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I think KVMs are a problem here. While you can buy HDMI switches that send 2 devices to 1 monitor for £10, somehow adding a USB switch to the same box jumps the price to £60.

      I never knew USB switches were so complicated to build...

      (hmm, or I can buy a USB+free VGA switch for £10, but add HDMI to that and the price jumps to £100, I never knew... oh you've heard it already)

  75. Monitors and HDMI by phorm · · Score: 1

    It seems that some monitors+video-cards work differently with HDMI as well.

    My laptop has a Radeon HD6370. When plugged into a 22" HP monitor via HDMI, it had weird overscan at 1080p issues I couldn't correct (stuff would be over the bounds of the screen or I'd get letterbox).

    When I plugged into the same monitor's HDMI port using a DVI->HDMI adaptor, no overscan issues.

  76. You do know... by Junta · · Score: 1

    DisplayPort is compatible with DVI. You just need a passive cable to make the pinouts line up...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:You do know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DisplayPort is compatible with DVI. You just need a passive cable to make the pinouts line up...

      I do now, thanks, but the point that VGA is relevant still stands. I _could_ use DisplayPort/DVI, but where's the advantage? I'm not using the setup for gaming, just desktop flunkie type work. VGA works fine for that.

  77. Re:That is why it is being killed off. by scorpivs · · Score: 0

    + uhf + vhf + crt + vhs + h2o + cash + any service without surrendering your maternal beaker's maiden name...

    huh. the caps for the acronyms got me a warning:

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    well, good luck with that, too.

    --
    There is nothing to FEAR but NOTHING itself; and I fear there is a whole lot of nothing going on. --scorpivs
  78. but they are the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead, double dog dare ya! Double dog dare with a cherry on top!!! Hows that? The dare is to look up the specs for HDMI and DVI. HDMI is DVI with audio.

  79. safe bet by pbjones · · Score: 1

    'likely' that a 5 year projection about the future of a PC related item, might possibly be right. were is the news?

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  80. Dumb HDMI is fine. Smart HDMI is a problem. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    If it's just another port that combines audio then it's fine. But if they start combining all sorts of copy protection schemes it's going to be annoying. I'm not too worried about it because I think even if MS or Apple puts that on their machines there will be driver hacks. So it won't matter. But it will also be one more thing that can go wrong.

    I also think businesses won't appreciate this... I don't know... I suppose HDMI to DVI converters might become really popular.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  81. What if it doesn't work just right? by rockman_x_2002 · · Score: 1

    I have no problems with HDMI at its base. When I've actively used it, it's worked just fine, and as for HDCP, well... name a copy protection scheme that hasn't been chiseled open given a little time (if that's your thing, of course. It's not for me, but ymmv).

    No, my problem is actually a more unique one, or at least I think so. I use my laptop now as my main PC since my desktop aged too much and became so slow it was no longer useful to me. The laptop I have features an HDMI port on it, as does the 22" monitor I have (a Hannspree). And for active use, this port works just fine and does everything it should. But since upgrading to Windows 7 on that laptop a couple of years ago, and updating the GPU drivers for it, the monitor won't go to sleep and stay asleep whenever the laptop goes to sleep or turns off. Once the laptop is asleep or is turned off, a couple of seconds later the screen shows a "NO SIGNAL" message right in the middle. When using VGA, this message goes off after a couple of seconds and the monitor itself then goes to sleep. While connected to HDMI, though, it never goes to sleep, even though the laptop is clearly asleep or off.

    It's almost as if the HDMI cable is still getting power from the laptop somehow, and the monitor is detecting that, but the monitor is obviously not getting any video feed from the laptop because it's asleep. But the monitor chooses to stay awake anyhow. The only fix is to unplug the HDMI cable after I turn off the laptop but that's a bit of a kludge if you ask me.

    At any rate, it's little bugs like these that I hope they work out. And maybe I just haven't gotten the right settings on the laptop to force the HDMI port to turn off when it goes to sleep.

  82. Shame about the drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I'm buggered, then. The HDMI port on my Linux laptop doesn't work because of a bullshit hybrid graphics system which serves only to drain the battery. Not a problem I've ever encountered with VGA (which is driving my external monitor very happily as I type).

  83. Pro Video is one way around restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just buy a DVI-SDI adapter and SDI Capture Card, instant HD recording by using Pro Video Standards, fight the bastards with there own tech!

  84. like most sports bars don't have cables / switches by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    They may have a HDMI / DVI projector but the cabling / switching system is likely VGA only and to go to HDMI / DVI you will new cables + may even a new switching system.

    It's just like all the sports bars with HD tv but no HD channels as there old cables / switching systems in SD only.

  85. This sucks a lot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of us who install A/V Systems, HDMI is a nightmare. Long gone are the days of terminating our own cables I suppose.

    If you didn't know, HDMI cables must be bought pre-terminated from the factory due to the very specific characteristics. Field termination is practically impossible.

  86. Only because of hardware limitations by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's perfectly possible to make encryption the pirates can't crack. If it wasn't they'd be making a killing intercepting credit card transactions online. What can't be done is make encryption the pirates can't crack that runs on cheap blu-ray players. Yes, the PS3 can make bullet proof encryption, it's also $250 after 7 years of price cuts. Try doing that on a $50 blu-ray player and remember, the disk has to play on both your expensive G1 PS3 and your cheap G5 player.

    Now, wait another 5 or 10 years for hardware to catch up and you can kiss piracy goodbye. Depending on your opinion this is good or bad.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Only because of hardware limitations by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      It's only possible if you have physical control of the hardware at both ends. As soon as the hardware is compromised, all bets are off.

      There are plenty of compromised credit card/debit terminals that have been used to skim card data and PINs.

    2. Re:Only because of hardware limitations by RobbieCrash · · Score: 2

      Spam will also be gone, so will passwords, cars that have to stay on the ground, studying will be replaced with instant direct to brain knowledge transfers, we'll have bases on Mars and an intergalactic cruise will set you back less than $30.

      Any lock that has a key can be picked.

      --
      Keep on knockin'
      https://robbiecrash.me
    3. Re:Only because of hardware limitations by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the mathematics of encryption, it's engineering. The pirates *have* to have the key to decrypt what they want, because without that key it isn't possible for legitimate viewers to watch either. That means a contest between hardware designers and software programmers trying to wrap the innards of their devices up in more and more layers of anti-tamper measures, and pirates finding new ways to tamper anyway. The advantage is with the pirates.

  87. Confusing to non-geeks? by WoTG · · Score: 1

    Hah!

    A few years ago, I hadn't dealt much w/DVI other than ordering a few matched PC+monitors for clients (matched, implying that I didn't really have to care about the various DVI versions). Then came the time I had to order a longer than normal DVI cable. I definitely did not look smart when I bought an incompatible cable. I can't recall the exact combination... I think the PC port had analog pins and the cable didn't, so they didn't fit together?

    I'll be glad when DVI dies. I still recommend most VGA for most "regular" users. At least it's goof proof... and that's half the battle.

  88. I only wish it could happen sooner by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    Most displays are digital now so having an aux VGA connector on a screen actually requires an analog to digital converter. That's extra circuitry. Then with multiple digital connectors you have extra processing logic for each and every signal. Multiple standards with multiple revisions.

    It's better if display cards and monitors just have one type of input/output each and you use an external converter (the same electronics that would have been on the card and or in the displays). Fortunately with digital signals going into the future the build quality of the converter doesn't really affect anything other than if the works or not so converters can be cheap.

    The one great thing about modern graphics cards is that they can drive more than one monitor. But I personally hate seeing VGA/DVI and now HDMI connectors on video cards. I want all just displayport or the latest connector. Must better to downgrade though an adapter you can choose.

  89. I'll miss DVI - this is bad news for bad EDID by dexotaku · · Score: 1

    I've skimmed the comments above but haven't noted anyone talking about a very specific issue that I've seen with HDMI vs. DVI or VGA.

    From what I've seen with many consumer and professional displays trying both HDMI and either VGA or DVI connections methods, EDID [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_display_identification_data] rarely works consistently across all 3. Specifically, VGA and DVI will report correct *native* display resolutions and timings, where HDMI will often only report standard HDTV resolutions [720p, 1080i, 1080p] and a selection of apparently randomly-selected "Generic PnP display" timings.

    My experience with most "HDTV" sets that aren't natively 720P or 1080P is that they'll not even report their native resolution over HDMI at all, or they'll report it with an absurd refresh rate like 47Hz [what I see repeatedly with 1360*768 displays]. Again, this is with displays which correctly report their capabilities when connected via DVI or VGA [with NVidia, AMD/ATI and Intel video cards, consistently, on multiple systems].

    The loss of DVI [or VGA] with properly-working EDID is a real one, then, since so many displays incorrectly report their capabilities via HDMI, making them pretty much useless [unless, of course, you actually like the scaling artefacts introduced by the display].

    One can hope, mind you, that displays manufacturers might start putting valid EDID data in the displays, which would fix at least half of the problem [the other half probably being lazy display driver creators].

    1. Re:I'll miss DVI - this is bad news for bad EDID by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I've seen the inverse of that, I have a HDTV that only properly reports EDID over HDMI. Hook up a PC with VGA and you mgiht get 800x600 or 720x400 or something else weird, which will require custom xorg.conf (In LInux) or Nvidia display settings (in Windows) to fix....but HDMI will give you proper 1440x900 with no tweaking.

       

  90. Rleax! Re:why phase out DVI? by Fubari · · Score: 1
    Relax, you can use your retro display tech for years to come:
    r.e. VGA displays? knock yourself out: HDMI to VGA converter
    DVI displays? knock yourself out: HDMI to DVI adapter

    So does this phase-out mean I won't be able to use the 4 VGA CRTs and 1 DVI LCD I have accumulated over the years?

    As for keeping CRT's around, I realize the better CRT's can have sweet color depth, nice refresh rates and are just swell when it comes to different resolutions. But I was happy to give away my heavy-ass large 21" CRT's to my friends and get a BIG chunk of my desktop back (this was about 10 years ago for me; I realize you're not there yet).
    Anyway, with converters you can keep your CRT's going for a long time. Enjoy. :-)

    What a waste of perfectly functional equipment.

    There will be a market "of sorts" for this "functional equipment". But there is a reason we are seeing CRT monitors and televisions left out in the alley by the garbage cans.
    At what point does it become unprofitable to sell them via ebay? (hint: if ship_cost > avg_sale_price then dumpster_time )

    Looking ahead, how many DVI and VGA connectors will we see on tablets or ultrabooks (or smart phones for that matter); those ports are huge compared to mini-HDMI. Maybe you aren't part of the tablet/ultrabook/smartphone market. *shrug* Many people are.
    (Looking somewhat further ahead, people will be asking why HDMI is going away in favor of direct retinal projection... anyway.)
    But hey, if you want to talk about "wasting" perfectly functional equipment, let's talk about these:
    DEC Writer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100use one of these and you get a CRT :-)
    Plotter
    Telegraph Key Bonus points for extra retro. :-)
    Sure, somewhere on our planet, today, there are some people who use each of these things.
    Just not most people.
    Just like in 2022, you'll be one of a handful of CRT enthusiasts. *shrug* That is cool and all.
    But asking "why waste perfectly good equipment?" That is like asking "why did our species move from stone-age to the bronze-age?"
    *sigh* Somewhere, thousands of years ago, Ogg was asking "Why you waste such good rocks?!"
    (So why was this "+5 Duh" parent post modded "+5 Informative?")

  91. Why not just nuke Hollywood? by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Who needs those ridiculous works of "art" anyway?

  92. Won't lose investment in VGA by windcask · · Score: 1

    With the millions (billions?) of active VGA-based equipment in corporate offices, one of two things will happen when purchasing new VGA-less hardware.

    1) Install VGA PCI card, which can be sourced new for as little as 15 dollars.

    2) Use adapter.

    The actual switchover, even if the assembly lines shut down today, won't happen for at least 10-15 years when the remaining VGA devices quit functioning.