Death to VGA Ports! Why Won't They Die Already?

[Jason Dunn]

<p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1222360394.usr1.jpg" /></p><p>Are you ready for a rant? Here goes: Dell has launched a computer model called the <a href="http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studio-slim?c=us&amp;cs=19&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs" target="_blank">Dell Studio Slim Desktop PC</a> last week, and one of the first things I noticed about it is that it has a VGA port. An analog monitor port. Why won't companies let this connector die? DVI should be the standard monitor connector on every computer out there, and if you need to down-convert to a VGA connector, it's easy to do do with a cheap adaptor. The Dell has the advantage of an HDMI port, which can be converted to a DVI port, but it would seem prudent to keep that HDMI port for other things.</p><p>I'm particularly irritated by this issue because last year I bought an <a href="http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/en/ho/WF25a/12454-12454-3329740-64546-64546-3688715.html" target="_blank">HP Slimline computer</a> for my wife, along with an HP w2207 LCD monitor (a 22" monitor running at 1680 x 1050). The problem? The Slimline computer only came with a VGA port! I can't fathom what HP was thinking with that decision - even if they wanted to target consumers who are using analog-only monitors, they can solve that problem with a DVI to VGA adaptor. Plugging in the 22" monitor, I saw what I expected to see: swirly distortions and general fuziness that goes hand in hand with running an analog display port at high resolutions. On a full-sized computer, it's easy enough to solve the problem by installing a new graphics card. On the Slimline, I had to find a low-profile video card, which ended up being an old NVIDIA 6200 I had laying around. It was passively cooled, so no extra noise was added to the machine, but unfortunately it had a tendency to crash Vista with a blue screen of death - which, incidently, is a very hard thing to with the way Vista handles video drivers. <MORE /></p><p>A few weeks ago I decided I needed to fix this crashing problem - and no amount of software tweaking seemed to work - so I pulled out the old video card and put in a new NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS. The problem was that it wasn't passively cooled, and I was extremely leery of adding anything to the computer that made it noisier. I couldn't find any passively-cooled low-profile cards. NVIDIA seems to think that everyone wants great 3D performance and with the 8000 and 9000 series cards, no one makes a passively cooled card that's also low-profile. I was hoping I could run the 8400 GS without the fan running, but I couldn't - the card overheated within the first minute. So now I have a card in there giving me nice DVI quality, but the fan is fairly noisy, which bugs me to no end. And to add insult to injury, the monitor blinks off now and then, as if the video card stops sending the signal - yet there's no driver crash or software-related problem. Could it be the 60 seconds when I ran the card without the fan on? Unlikely, but it's possible.</p><p>And none of this would have happened if HP had simply put a DVI port on their Slimline. VGA ports have no place on a modern desktop computer.</p>

[jeffd]

Sorry for bursting your well establish rant in one go, but it mainly has to do with support. there is still more support out there for the vga port on cheap lcd displays, crt monitors, LCD TVs that support pc connections, and devices like splitters, most still use vga. It's taking a damn long time just to kill serial and parellel, and my 680i still has a serial connector.

That said, they really should just use a digital connector and supply the VGA conection converter so you can have the choice. Every video card ive gotten so far with digital plugs has supplied a vga converter plug.

[EscapePod]

Well now wait a minute ---- where am I supposed to plug in my "Sideshow" mini-monitor if I don't have an analog port, and my DVI port goes to my main monitor?????

In your pic, it looks like they've already axed the PS ports (keyboard/mouse), so be patient. They'll get rid of the 15-pin analog video -- no body really uses a Sideshow anyway.

[Felix Torres]

1- Cheap LCD monitors
2- guaranteed compatibility on projectors
3- HDMI is immature and DVI support on displays is fading

A combo of VGA and HDMI is probably optimal; better/cheaper for us if they use the more common ports rather than making us buy the DVI-to-VGA adapter.

But yes, *VGA-only* is reprehensible.

[djdj]

1. Motherboard chipsets don't include support for DVI, so to add DVI to a mini PC would require a dedicated graphics board, which would raise the cost.

2. Most monitors which support DVI also support VGA. The reverse is not necessarily true.

3. DVI doesn't really give any quality advantage over VGA with decent cables. I'm sitting in front of three high end LCD monitors, one connected with DVI, two with VGA, and the VGA looks every bit as good as the DVI, even through 30 foot extension cables (the computer I'm using is actually in the next room to keep noise and heat down in this room).

4. DVI isn't perfect. It took me forever to get my Dell 24" monitor (2408) to work at 1920x1200 with DVI. Over VGA it worked on the first attempt. In order to get DVI to work I had to attach the monitor to the second output of the video card; it would only come up at 1680x1050 on the first port. Which means I don't see the BIOS or Windows boot screens.

I also have one computer that absolutely refuses to output any video over DVI on either port until Windows has booted. So for me to enter the BIOS or even view the Windows boot screens I have to connect it with VGA.

5. In order for a DVI to VGA adapter to work the video card also has to implement analog VGA output at the DVI connector. The adapter is just taking the analog signals on the DVI-I port and outputting them on their equivalent VGA pins. More components, more cost. And many DVI-VGA adapters are junk and introduce ghosting and other artifacts.

6. DVI has serious distance limitations without an expensive active amplifier. I can run VGA hundreds of feet with minimal signal degradation. DVI (and HDMI) just quits working altogether after about 50 feet on normal cabling.

7. DVI is more expensive to implement. Not only is the basic signalling more difficult to generate, the signal lines in the cable must be shielded individually, making the cables and connectors considerably more expensive to build than VGA.

After all of the problems I've had with DVI I generally give it one chance to work when making a monitor connection, and if it fails I'll switch to VGA because of its proven reliability.

As for the mention of the serial port, there are many, many devices which are still only available with serial connections. I'm developing a point-of-sale application, and most devices for a POS environment are only available wih serial interfaces. Again, its proven reliability. USB is supposed to replace RS-232, but USB breaks down over anything but short distances. Serial connections can be run hundreds of feet, even over cheap CAT-5 cables. Parallel printer connections, on the other hand, can die without me batting an eye.

[jeffd]

djdj, thats not a dvi problem. thats a crappy video card problem. ;)

I am fairly certain intels last few northrbidge video chipset solutions have support for dvi. Its just up to the motherboard maker to decide which to use.

[EscapePod]

1. Motherboard chipsets don't include support for DVI, so to add DVI to a mini PC would require a dedicated graphics board, which would raise the cost.



One of my, and customers', favorite motherboards is the Gigabyte MATX GA-MA78GM-S2H, which has 15-pin analog, HDMI, AND DVI, all on board. Excellent HD output. Most folks use it for home theater. It also supports hybrid mode (by AMD) when using a video card in tandem with the onboard chip. The really amazing part is its street price of $82 - $88 U.S.D.

[Jason Dunn]

...but it mainly has to do with support. there is still more support out there for the vga port on cheap lcd displays, crt monitors, LCD TVs that support pc connections, and devices like splitters, most still use vga.

Right, I understand that - but my point is that HP and all the OEMs can provide the higher quality of DVI, and the compatibility of VGA, by going with DVI and providing an adaptor. Instead they go with the lower quality of VGA and expect people to buy VGA-only monitors. DVI downscales to VGA easily, VGA can't upscale from analog to digital and look good doing it.

[Jason Dunn]

3- HDMI is immature and DVI support on displays is fading

Fading? I haven't been monitor shopping in about six months, but I don't think I've seen HDMI-only monitors...I bet they're out there, but I tend to see VGA/DVI/HDMI connections the most often.

[Jason Dunn]

You raise some interesting points - thanks for sharing.

3. DVI doesn't really give any quality advantage over VGA with decent cables. I'm sitting in front of three high end LCD monitors, one connected with DVI, two with VGA, and the VGA looks every bit as good as the DVI, even through 30 foot extension cables (the computer I'm using is actually in the next room to keep noise and heat down in this room).

Well, I suppose it might be the cable, but this is the cable that came with the monitor, so you'd think it would be good enough for decent quality. VGA to me typically looks a bit fuzzy, less crisp, and worst of all those "swirlies" drive me nuts. Maybe I'll try switching the HP back to VGA and swapping the cable.

But for the record, I've never had any of the problems with DVI that you've mentioned - maybe DVI knows you don't like it, and it's giving you lip. :D

[Felix Torres]

Fading? I haven't been monitor shopping in about six months, but I don't think I've seen HDMI-only monitors...I bet they're out there, but I tend to see VGA/DVI/HDMI connections the most often.

Fading. Slowly, but the connector *is* being deprecated.
After all it doesn't do much that HDMI can't do...

A couple years back DVI was *the* must-have connection and it was moving both up-stream *and* downstream, into both HDTV and budget displays.

Nowadays its mostly gone from the smaller, cheaper, high-volume displays, its almost totally gone from HDTVs, and its starting to be replaced by HDMI on even low-cost video cards. It should hang on a few more years on higher-end computer monitor that need dual-channel inputs but at the low and mid-ranges it should be gone in a couple of years.

Right now, I'd bet VGA outlives DVI on monitors.

[Joel Crane]

I was thinking about this just a couple days ago, I was plugging my laptop into a projector at school to use PowerPoint in a speech I was presenting, and I thought to myself "I'm glad this is VGA because its what my laptop has, but why is it still VGA?"

I started paying attention to laptops, sure enough, I see nothing but VGA ports, even on the fancy Alienware systems that the other students have.

Its all fine with me, I own nothing but 19 inch CRT monitors (Even for my Xbox 360). My videocard in my desktop outputs a secondary DVI, but the DVI to VGA adapter I have is terribly fuzzy and ghosty, so i just use an old TNT2 for my second monitor.

It's amazing how old some of these connectors are.

[stan]

Simply because there are still massive load of traditional CRT monitors out there. C'mon, what do you think people do with them now? Ship them to 3rd world for 2nd life? We still use them you know. FYI, it still render colors richer than most lcd with unlimited angles. I'm still an owner of a Sony Trinitron....(ahem)

[Jason Dunn]

A couple years back DVI was *the* must-have connection and it was moving both up-stream *and* downstream, into both HDTV and budget displays.

Agreed - on most HDTVs it's been quite a while since I've seen a DVI connector, so I'd say it's completely dead in that space. On my new LG plasma (50PG70) I have four HDMI connectors, and one VGA. DVI is dead in that space. So VGA has out-lived DVI on TVs...

...and its starting to be replaced by HDMI on even low-cost video cards. It should hang on a few more years on higher-end computer monitor that need dual-channel inputs but at the low and mid-ranges it should be gone in a couple of years.

I'm not quite seeing that here - the cheapest video card with HDMI out from my local computer store is $155, and there are a good 20+ video cards under $100 (which I'd consider to be low-end cards). What I have seen though are DVI ports that are HDMI compatible; my ATI video card has dual DVI, but came with a DVI to HDMI adaptor that works like a charm. I think we'll see more of that - DVI in the computing space is going to last a while longer I think...

[Jason Dunn]

Simply because there are still massive load of traditional CRT monitors out there. C'mon, what do you think people do with them now?

Honestly? I haven't seen a CRT monitor in the home of friend/family/other in quite some time - I'd say at least two years. LCDs are cheap, power-efficient, and take up much less space than CRTs. With new computers coming bundled with LCDs quite often, I find it hard to believe that someone would buy a new computer and keep their old CRT. I'm sure some do, but I just honestly haven't seen it with anyone that I know. :)

Ultimately I think most computers should have both a VGA and DVI (or HDMI) connector because it gives people more options...

[onlydarksets]

Are you ready for a rant? Here goes: Dell has launched a computer model called the Dell Studio Slim Desktop PC (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studio-slim?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) last week, and one of the first things I noticed about it is that it has a VGA port. An analog monitor port. Why won't companies let this connector die? DVI should be the standard monitor connector on every computer out there, and if you need to down-convert to a VGA connector, it's easy to do do with a cheap adaptor. The Dell has the advantage of an HDMI port, which can be converted to a DVI port, but it would seem prudent to keep that HDMI port for other things.

I don't understand this statement at all. An HDMI port is simply DVI+audio (http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html) (and, depending on the DVI port you are comparing it to, +HDCP). Admittedly, you have to buy an adapter, but I don't see how you are harmed in any way by having a better connector than DVI? What would you save the HDMI port for?

[onlydarksets]

I'm not quite seeing that here - the cheapest video card with HDMI out from my local computer store is $155, and there are a good 20+ video cards under $100 (which I'd consider to be low-end cards). What I have seen though are DVI ports that are HDMI compatible; my ATI video card has dual DVI, but came with a DVI to HDMI adaptor that works like a charm. I think we'll see more of that - DVI in the computing space is going to last a while longer I think...

I bought one from Best Buy for $80 (no longer on their site). Newegg has them starting from $33 (and 40 under $100):
Newegg.com - hdmi, Desktop Graphics / Video Cards, Video Cards & Video Devices, Computer Hardware (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048&page=1&srchInDesc=hdmi&bop=And&Order=PRICE)

This doesn't invalidate your point - I agree that DVI is still the poor-man's digital connector. However, I do think that HDMI is gaining significant traction in that space.

[onlydarksets]

Looks like the push has begun in earnest:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/30/amd-debuts-dirt-cheap-ati-radeon-hd-4550-hd-4350-graphics-cards/