What is the point to the DVI port?
 

Why does apple have the DVI port when as far as I can tell there aren't really devices that use the DVI port directly? Rather most devices rely on a converter such as a DVI to VGA adapter or such so what is the point, wouldn't it be better if Apple just replaced the DVI port with a VGA port instead? :confused:

That's not true. There are more and more LCD panels using DVI in ordinary electronics stores.

VGA is an old analog standard. DVI is all-digital and much more sharp and precise.

really? could you link to one please? I'd like to get an idea of the companies offering such monitors and the prices they come in as I might buy one for my next monitor whenever my new vga flatpanel monitor burns out (which I hope isn't for quite some time but hey, planning ahead never hurts...as long as you don't believe in jinxing that is ;) :p ) :)

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...=19&l=en&s=dhs

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...=AppleDisplays

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

You just bought a brand new VGA monitor???? Ummm well next time go for DVI especially if your current mac supports it!

I have both types of monitors VGA and DVI. And one with both connectors. DVI is usually 25% more money and you do not see a difference necessarily. But if you would project the image trough DVI to the wall on max resolution you would see dramatic difference.
So if you have a new good VGA LCD monitor, be happy with it.

I disagree. I noticed the difference immediately when switching from one monitor with VGA and my current Apple Cinema Display. But perhaps that has more to do with the quality and age of the components than the interconnects....

Many, perhaps most, modern monitors have both a VGA and DVI connector because most higher-end video cards now support both. It doesn't seem to be a significant factor in the cost of the monitor.

Joe VanZandt

I've been using DVI only for years. The premium is minor when you compare it to a similar monitor, however, the dirt-cheap junky monitors all come with VGA.

The difference in quality is very easy to see.

They're just not that hard to find. Here's a link that's intentionally to some mediocre 17" monitors at Best Buy.

11 monitors are listed. More than half of them have DVI, though you may have to dig into individual product pages to see it mentioned. And those are really cheapo monitors from Beast Buy of all places. As you go up in size, price, and quality, the percentage of the monitors that have DVI gets closer to 100%.

Still...
My experience is with old HP L!520. It does not show difference between DVI and VGA I can tell.
And since my year old SyncMaster 913n has only VGA I can tell that this monitor looks pretty good comparing to HP at DVI input.
So it would be nice to hear about the test with a modern VGA-DVI monitor.

Was that intentional?

Anyway, I have a 19" ViewSonic with both VGA and DVI, but it seems my video card's connector is different than the one on my monitor?

Types of DVI:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com.../Dvi_types.png

Trevor

of course...like all hardware standards there's many different types of this kind of hardware...ugh...why can't they just choose one standard format for peet sakes? I mean I can't imagine the arrangement of the pins really changes anything at all...different kinds of scsi, different kinds of ide/ata/general hd connectons...different types of ram...different processor sockets...is all this really necessary? IMO a standard for all these hardware components would be really nice...

those various DVI layouts are normally only on the display connector. That plugs into the video card, which will usually accept ANY of those various DVI connectors, and that's the standard - the pin arrangement, and the size/shape. The various configurations simply show you which pins are needed by the various DVI hardware, but the plug itself is usually the same, and will usually plug into any vid card with a DVI connector. Not all DVI monitors will be supported with every vid card, such as the dual link, which is for the really-large displays (requires more capability from the vid card), but the display will still plug in, because the connector complies with the standard....

Well, my monitor's connector has a 'squareish' shape, while my video card has a 'roundish' shape.`

Well, the 'roundish' connector is an ADC connector, not DVI. Carries power as as well as USB, and Video.
That's Apple's take on a different standard from DVI, which has been abandoned (thankfully)

If apple introduce new Cinema Displays with Built in iSight (as I think thats the next obvious evolution to the Displays) how do you think they will handle the connections..

There will have to be a separate connection to the computer. The present cinema displays already do this for the USB and FireWire ports on the back of the display. The built-in iSight cameras use the USB bus, and a display would likely also connect the camera to the USB bus on the computer.

It would seem the simplest solution although I assume you mean the USB used out of the display would have to be dedicated for that task rather than being part of a USB hub?

They'll just add the iSight to the FireWire bus already installed in the display for the display's two FireWire hub ports. The display's bus leads to the FireWire cable that branches off from the main display cable. Apple did the right thing by ditching ADC and putting standard DVI/USB/FireWire branches on the end of the integrated monitor cable.

The present integrated iSight is USB, not FireWire - although the result is the same. It would simply be seen as another USB device, I suppose. A dedicated bus just for the camera would not be needed. It's certainly not a dedicated bus on those built-in to the other Macs.

Right, that's why I said "added to" the bus. No new bus needed. USB or FireWire, they'd just need to patch it in and off they go.