Seriously, why the hell are video cards even being equipped with a VGA connector?

[VirtualLarry]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned, are issues of burn-in. Modern CRTs have evolved to resist that problem very well; LCDs and plasma displays can still suffer from "burn-in" pretty badly. I've seen consumer LCDs hooked up to PCs, less than two years old, and they already have the Windows' XP GUI widgets burned into them strongly in the corners. That's really distubing to see, a CRT would likely require that same image to be displayed for five years before seeing noticable burn-in on the phosphors.

 

[kmmatney]

LCDs can suffer from burn in - but its reversible from what I've heard. Just show a white image as a screen saver for a few days, or turn the LCD off for a while. I've heard of some bad cases where the panel had to be replaced, but mainly with early generation LCDs on laptops.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Why doesn't Mr. larry show me a CRT that doesn't blur over time?

I'm not so sure that I understand your reasoning behind this comment.. would you likewise show me an LCD that doesn't have "backlight fade" over time? Oh, that's right, both CRT displays and LCDs (and their required backlights), both lose brightness over time.
As far as focus issues, that has to do with component aging over time too, and the circuits that drive LCDs can also suffer from component aging, although with some of those components being in the solid-state/digital realm moreso than CRTs, the likelyhood is greater than an LCD will just simply suddenly fail, rather than "grow old" like a CRT. Besides, CRTs can be tuned up and adjusted, although few do so because of the labor costs.

Btw, one of the things that can happen to LCDs as they age, is a "pixel registration" problem, where the signal used to drive particular pixels, gets offset by a sub-pixel width horizontally, because the sync-tracking PLL circuit components can age.

Most people don't realize this, since consumer-level LCDs are mostly a new technology, and there are few if any LCDs out in the field today that are > five years old.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
I've never seen one that doesn't, no Trinitrons, Dimanondtrons, or Invar Shadow Masks.
They ALL blur overtime if you use them a lot. That's why I went LCD. There will never blur and will in almost all cases function just as new as long as there are technologically viable. (Many years)

Hope you enjoy your LCD backlight fade. If you somehow don't believe that this happens, visit the "AVS forums", and do a search on "display longevity" of the various types. They have all of the tech info.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
You guys are like the old timers who said fuel injection would never be better than a carb.
Guess we see who won that arguement....

It's not always better - if your engine computer ("electronic multi-port computer-controller fuel-injection") gets screwed, you can't even manually fiddle with the carb and the throttle to get it started. But that analogy is a bit oblique to the CRT/LCD comparison.

You do realize it only takes about 3 months before a CRT is hopelessly out of focus don't you? For someone who seems to witness "artifacts" with VGA/DVI adapters so easy you must have an exceptional tolerance to blurryness.

You are trying to say it is more likely for a LCD panel and it's hardware contollers to fail than a high voltage transformer and a CRT tube to fail?

Why don't you see how long other tubes last comparison to stolid state circuits. Take amplifiers for instance. It is not uncommon to replace tubes every 6-12 months. Rectifiers on the other hand last years.

Your arguements about the carb vs fuel injection are quite invalid also. The reliability of fuel injection is unquestionable higher than carburetors. Fuel injection has better emissions, better fuel economy, better performance, and better cold starting ability. Also, anyone who $100.00 can get a code scanner and find out almost precisely what is wrong with their engine. Also, with shops like autozone allowing consumers to use their code scanners for free I really see this as a non issue.

I'm not sure how you are trying to sale LCDs have shorten lifespans and grow darker over time.

Modern backlights have a MTBF of around 50,000 hrs. This is almost six years of continuous use. Show me a CRT with a higher MTBF.

You also try to say that they will grow darker. While I have never seen one do this myself I suppose it is possible. Although the flourescent bulbs they are based on are rarely known to do this. Even if they did, how many people have to run LCDs are 100% brightness? I have mine set at 0% and it is still brighter than most CRTs on MAX brightness. I think I have a little room to go if indeed it ever does get dimmer.

I have manually adjusted the focus on many CRTs, but usually if a screen is more than 1 year old it is impossible to get the focus perfect again. Perfect is quite relative because I can look at ANY crt ever made and see the bluriness. LCDs can NOT get blurry with DVI. It simply is not possible with one pixel being represented by ONE pixel in the matrix.

You also seem to question the reliability of PLLs. What a laugh. Every computer componet that is driven by a clock signal is run by a PLL. If there were as unrealiable as you speak then our processors would never function.

In short, if you do not value your eyes and don't mind having headaches go ahead and keep using your CRT. We don't care. But to say we shouldn't have dual DVI because adapters cause quality issues on your already poor quality CRTs is absurb. They are so poorly focused and the geometry is so bad even on the best adjusted CRTs that there's a good chance any issues caused by an adapter make actually make your radiation boxes look better.

Use a CRT for 16 hours a day and then use an LCD for the same amount of time and tell me which is easier on your eyes.

 

[Gentle]

"Show me a CRT with a higher MTBF."

Not really official or anything...

But I've had my LG StudioWorks 76i since 1996 and it has not failed on me yet.

Gentle

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
You do realize it only takes about 3 months before a CRT is hopelessly out of focus don't you?

Wow. I stopped reading after that comment, I'll let others make their own decisions about the credibility of your futher statements; however, I've made up my mind already.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
For someone who seems to witness "artifacts" with VGA/DVI adapters so easy you must have an exceptional tolerance to blurryness.

No, I've just used mostly high-quality CRTs for most of my computing experience. When you decide to pay more then $10 for a cheapo 14" CRT, then perhaps you too will realize the fallacy of your first statement.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
You are trying to say it is more likely for a LCD panel and it's hardware contollers to fail than a high voltage transformer and a CRT tube to fail?

No, I'm saying that it is just as likely, more or less, because other than the tube (on a CRT), and the LCD panel and backlight (on an LCD), the rest of the components are similar. Did you even realise that LCD panels require a high-voltage step-up transformer too? Apparently not.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Why don't you see how long other tubes last comparison to stolid state circuits. Take amplifiers for instance. It is not uncommon to replace tubes every 6-12 months. Rectifiers on the other hand last years.

CRT tubes, good ones, have a roughly-estimated lifespan on the order of 8-10 years, for the tube itself. Obviously, over that lifetime, the brightness will diminish somewhat. OTOH, the lifespan of the backlight used in most consumer LCDs, has an estimated lifespan of somewhere around 3-5 years, last time I checked, and it also diminishes in brightness over the overall lifetime. Btw, in order to produce a "brighter", and "higher-contrast" LCD, they also have to drive the backlight harder, which lowers the overall lifespan. (Well, those "super-bright" modes on some CRTs also do the same thing to a CRTs tubes too, which is why I would recommend using it sparingly, and in either case, turn off the backlight on an LCD, or the tube on a CRT, if you're not going to be using it for a while. Both have finite lifespans.)

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Your arguements about the carb vs fuel injection are quite invalid also. The reliability of fuel injection is unquestionable higher than carburetors. Fuel injection has better emissions, better fuel economy, better performance, and better cold starting ability. Also, anyone who $100.00 can get a code scanner and find out almost precisely what is wrong with their engine. Also, with shops like autozone allowing consumers to use their code scanners for free I really see this as a non issue.

I'm going to drop the issue of automotives in this thread, since they really have no bearing whatsover on the current discussion.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
I'm not sure how you are trying to sale LCDs have shorten lifespans and grow darker over time.
Modern backlights have a MTBF of around 50,000 hrs. This is almost six years of continuous use. Show me a CRT with a higher MTBF.
You also try to say that they will grow darker. While I have never seen one do this myself I suppose it is possible. Although the flourescent bulbs they are based on are rarely known to do this. Even if they did, how many people have to run LCDs are 100% brightness? I have mine set at 0% and it is still brighter than most CRTs on MAX brightness. I think I have a little room to go if indeed it ever does get dimmer.

Well, once it finally starts to "go dim", I have a feeling that the falloff curve isn't as gently-sloped as a CRT, but I don't have any hard data at this point to back that up. But I am completely certain that LCDs have a limited, diminishing lifespan as well, and that lifespan is, on average, shorter than a (decent-quality) CRT tube.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
I have manually adjusted the focus on many CRTs, but usually if a screen is more than 1 year old it is impossible to get the focus perfect again.

First of all, unless you are a trained factory or service tech, you shouldn't be adjusting the focus control, unless you are talking about the OSD control and not the "inner" physical controls on the CRT's yoke PCB. Second, if you are using CRTs that are going out of focus in only one year, either you are abusing the heck out of them (temp/environmental extremes), or you are simply using crap-quality CRTs. I've got some bloody ancient DEC workstation monitors based on Sony Trintron tubes, I got them used, and they're *still* sharp, text is perfectly readable at 1920 across on them - when used with a decent-quality video card, of course. (Matrox Millenium PCI) I've used plenty of "used" CRTs, some with production dates as much as ten years old, and rarely have they been that severely out of focus, if at all. The key here, is that I'm talking about high-end CRTs, Sony/Hitachi/NEC tubes, that were properly factory-adjusted in the first place, and built with high-quality circuitry to support the tube. I have no doubt that a Wal-Mart-special CRT would probably go out of adjustment in one year and die not much longer than that. Then again, you can purchase bottom-of-the-barrel LCDs too, and end up with dozens of bad pixels, and a backlight that fails early, or the power-supply, or whatnot. In either case, I was trying to compare "quality" displays of each type, I wasn't comparing the bottom-of-the-barrel of one to the top-end of the other, that wouldn't be fair.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Perfect is quite relative because I can look at ANY crt ever made and see the bluriness.

Perhaps the problem is not the CRT, but the quality of the analog output coming from your video card? If you are using an NV card, that is likely the problem.

Interestingly, in the case of LCDs using DVI inputs, even high-end NV cards have had problems, and you might actually get a better display output on those cards from using the analog VGA output port, if your LCD supports both input types.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
LCDs can NOT get blurry with DVI. It simply is not possible with one pixel being represented by ONE pixel in the matrix.

I was speaking more of the analog VGA LCDs, which are quite common, and can indeed have that problem. I'll have to do some more research on whether that can affect LCDs that use DVI; there are some issues with clock signal recovery and de-skew of the data signals and the PLL and related things. The DVI interface has some issues too, it's hardly perfect. (Witness the TH and ExtremeTech DVI quality expose articles.)

Originally posted by: cbehnken
You also seem to question the reliability of PLLs. What a laugh. Every computer componet that is driven by a clock signal is run by a PLL. If there were as unrealiable as you speak then our processors would never function.

Are the PLLs driving your CPU "perfect"? Actually, no they are not. Most people simply accept that an output clock-freq error of 5-10Mhz either way is "acceptable". But were that clock signal used for clocking display data, you would see some errors. Most PLLs require external timing references, either a crystal, an R-C circuit, or both. (I think.) Those passive components can have their tolerances drift with time, and eventually the factory-adjustment fades.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
In short, if you do not value your eyes and don't mind having headaches go ahead and keep using your CRT. We don't care.

Actually, the extreme brightness of most LCD backlights give me headaches, but that's a subjective thing and besides the point. And if you really didn't care, you wouldn't have bothered to respond.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
But to say we shouldn't have dual DVI because adapters cause quality issues on your already poor quality CRTs is absurb.

You obviously know nothing about the physics of analog transmission-line characteristics and the issues of bandwidth. Ironically, it would be on the low-end CRTs that you must obviously be talking about, that the reduction in analog bandwidth that those DVI-to-VGA adaptor dongles cause, would likely not be noticable. It's only at higher resolutions/refresh-rates that such problems become immediately evident. If you had ever used a high-end CRT you would know that.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
They are so poorly focused and the geometry is so bad even on the best adjusted CRTs that there's a good chance any issues caused by an adapter make actually make your radiation boxes look better.

Now that's just FUD. LCDs give off radiation too you know. It's likely less than most CRTs (although CRTs are generally more heavily shielded to compensate), but an LCDs emissions are definately non-zero.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Use a CRT for 16 hours a day and then use an LCD for the same amount of time and tell me which is easier on your eyes.

Honestly? A CRT is, for my eyes at least. I also adjust the brightness and contrast downward, to suit me.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Gentle
"Show me a CRT with a higher MTBF."
Not really official or anything...
But I've had my LG StudioWorks 76i since 1996 and it has not failed on me yet.
Gentle

The NEC 17" tube that I'm using right now, was made in '96, and it's still sharp as ever, no "blurriness" that I can discern. I can see the difference in the picture-quality if I use a DVI-to-VGA dongle, or a mechanical VGA KVM switch though.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Gentle
"Show me a CRT with a higher MTBF."
Not really official or anything...
But I've had my LG StudioWorks 76i since 1996 and it has not failed on me yet.
Gentle

The NEC 17" tube that I'm using right now, was made in '96, and it's still sharp as ever, no "blurriness" that I can discern. I can see the difference in the picture-quality if I use a DVI-to-VGA dongle, or a mechanical VGA KVM switch though.

You'll respond with anything you can to "prove" your point.

Last monitor I had was a Nec 97F. While by no means a high end monitor is is certainly not a $10.00 14 inch model. It went out of focus in about 6 months.

The monitor before that was a Sony GDM 500. Again this isn't the greatest montior ever built, but it is a Trinitron and it was still a POS after 2 years. Contrast washed out and the focus got really bad. I adjusted it and it helped a ton, but it certainly isn't like new.
Aside from picture issues we have a nice popping sound ever once in a while and the monitor is using 230 Watts according to my online UPS.

LCDs on the other hand...

17" Compaq $200 model off ebay. No bluriness even 4 years after it's manufacture date. Good as new..

17" Tatung LCD on sale at best buy for $350 spring '04. Worked perfectly after 1 year on hard use (on 10+ hours per day)

Dell 2001FP for $500.00. Works perfectly, has virtually no apparent ghosting and is the sharpest display I have ever seen.

You believe I am foolish enough to adjust the magnets on the yoke!? My grandpa repaired TVs for 50 years and there are a few things I have learned. I adjust the horizontal and vertical focus using the flyback transformer adjustments when there are none on the OSD.

You do realish that the yoke controls adjust convergence and not focus don't you? You seem to be so knowlegeable about everything else...

Oh and yes I'm using a nvidia card. That's why I have a 9700 Pro in my sig. It was able to reproduce accurate DVI until 162 Mhz.

You act like LCD monitors are a new thing.

"In 1968, Heilmeier's RCA group succeeded in producing the first stable experimental liquid crystal display panels using a technique known as dynamic scattering mode (DSM). "

If you want the rest of the history of LCDs read this:

http://www.ce.org/publications/books_re...l_america/history/portable_screens.asp

 

[RelaxTheMind]

do you geeks argue like this in public places?

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: RelaxTheMind
do you geeks argue like this in public places?

yes

 

[webekyle]

most gamers know that CRT's have better refresh rate than LCD

 

[dev0lution]

LCD's are already 40+% of all monitors sold and CRT makers probably won't be making anything below 21" in the future, since LCD's are killing CRT's in the 15 and 17" market. That being said, Dual DVI is still only needed by a fraction of all users - those who're running dual displays. They should be able to make do with the selection of dual-dvi cards out there, since there are models that offer this at both the high and mid-range.

When the market research shows that dual dvi-displays are a bit more common, you'll probably see a whole lot more dual-dvi cards. Until then you're a niche and will have to choose from products that caters to that niche.

 

[imported_RedStar]

the mid range xfx nvidia 6600 GT comes standard with 2 dvi connectors and 2 vga/dvi adapeters. cool i say.

but what does having 2 dvi connectors do for you...using 2 monitors (i have not researched this yet as i still use just one crt)?...and with a sli ready board..you could have 4 monitors


edit: nm..i have finished reading rest of this thread..much longer than i thought it was

 

[oslama]

CRT > LCD when it comes to gaming

 

[SirPappy]

Originally posted by: oslama
CRT > LCD when it comes to gaming

I agree. I love my LCD, but I use my CRT for Gamming.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
The NEC 17" tube that I'm using right now, was made in '96, and it's still sharp as ever, no "blurriness" that I can discern.

You'll respond with anything you can to "prove" your point.

Well, it's not like that's not exactly what you were doing, making ridiculous claims about all CRTs going out of focus in less than a year. Let me assure you, that isn't the norm at all.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Last monitor I had was a Nec 97F. While by no means a high end monitor is is certainly not a $10.00 14 inch model. It went out of focus in about 6 months.

The monitor before that was a Sony GDM 500. Again this isn't the greatest montior ever built, but it is a Trinitron and it was still a POS after 2 years. Contrast washed out and the focus got really bad. I adjusted it and it helped a ton, but it certainly isn't like new. Aside from picture issues we have a nice popping sound ever once in a while and the monitor is using 230 Watts according to my online UPS.

In fact, I did some searching, and I found, well, a preponderance of negative reviews/comments about the NEC 97F model, many complaining about the near-term occurance of visual defects. I hate to say it, but it looks like your experiences were primarily based on a pair of bad products. I'll admit, it's not a "low-end 14", by any means (based on the price), although judging by the reviews you might get that impression. Nearly all of the review comments document some problem or another, that occured during the first three years. link. I admit, I'm a fan of NEC displays, and this model seems pretty disappointing.

The Sony I'm not personally familiar either, but again, I found quite a few reviews, and many of them complained about "blurriness" issues. link. So I'm not discounting your experiences at all, but IMO those sorts of problems only affect a minority of the overall products on the market. You just happened to get lucky twice, it seems.

"Popping noises" are bad, too, and indicate that something is defective. I had a 19" MAG CRT that made "zap" noises occasionally, ever since I purchased it, and it died in only two years, although it was plenty-sharp at 1600x1200 @ 68Hz up until that time. A more recently-purchased similar 19" MAG model, had notably cheaper construction, and 1600x1200 wasn't really usable at all. If anything, it's almost better to get an older, more well-built CRT, with a minimum of power-on hours, than a brand-new one these days. It seems that as prices went down, build construction/quality/factory-adjustment quality all went down on CRTs too.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
LCDs on the other hand...
17" Compaq $200 model off ebay. No bluriness even 4 years after it's manufacture date. Good as new..
17" Tatung LCD on sale at best buy for $350 spring '04. Worked perfectly after 1 year on hard use (on 10+ hours per day)
Dell 2001FP for $500.00. Works perfectly, has virtually no apparent ghosting and is the sharpest display I have ever seen.

Are those all connected via DVI? Perhaps I somewhat overstated the "blurriness on LCD" issue, but I have read reports that it can happen on displays that use analog inputs, and also for those using video cards with poor-quality DVI signal outputs. The bigger issue is backlight lifetime/longevity, and ghosting. Those all seem like decently high-end LCDs, those should likely run well for their lifetime.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Oh and yes I'm using a nvidia card. That's why I have a 9700 Pro in my sig. It was able to reproduce accurate DVI until 162 Mhz.
You act like LCD monitors are a new thing.

Not totally new, but newer than CRTs, and in terms of consumer use and availability / pricing, yes, it has only been in the last few years that major OEMs have even been shipping mainstream consumer-level systems with LCD displays. Far too short a time to start seeing incidents of "LCD backlight death" yet. But we will. Just like CRTs die, LCDs do too. Btw, I have sig display disabled in my profile.

 

[knyghtbyte]

just fancied saying, even the people in the industries themselves agree that CRT is a much better picture quality than flat panels at the moment, if your CRT has bluriness or whatever then im sorry but you just dont have it set up right, or have bought an exceptionally cheap one.

As for lifespan, well, same principle, buy a cheap CRT, it might burn out in 5 years...
buy a good one, it will last a long time......
an example using a TV, my parents used the same TV for around 18 years, the picture was still fantastic, right up till the point the tube blew up. (and no, i dont mean physically shattered, i just mean went khaput)

One thing tho, dont just assume high cost means high performance, it doesnt. Sony sell lots of items expensively, yet you can get just as good for half the price of someone like Toshiba. Best thing to do is just test it yourself before you buy, if you like it, buy it.

I know that imho i much prefer to use a CRT for gaming, i actually got a headache using my flatpanel on my other computer because of the ghosting, and that was a 16ms panel.
But however, it was much more preferable to use the flatpanel for webusage. The CRT in that instance if used for too long (ie reading lots of text) could get a bit headachey....
As for DVI-VGA adaptor causing artifacts or loss of quality, thats quite possible, any extra link in a signal chain can degrade it, this i know from my Hifi/Home Cinema hobby, however, if you use a good quality adaptor, not just the cheap supplied one, then you should find those artifacts will go away. I use one on my current setup and i dont notice any negative effects....

now, its time to go to work...dooby dooby quack quack..

 

[imported_humey]

I agree but if you use a tftlcd for text please turn on CLEARTYPE in XP, dont use for CRT of you get sore head, For office apps tftlcd be fine as tilt models you can swivel screen and fit A4 paper on screen 100% real size.

But i like my CRT for games and i will prob wait on samsung or other's Shallow CRT'sin 2006.

 

[chorner]

all I can add to this, is that despite the fact that I'm on my 4th Dell 2001fp trying to find one without any dead pixels/sub-pixels and "perfect" backlighting (damn refurbs .... about 20x worse than my original new one I've had since Dec '04) compared to my Samsung 950p anyhow, this LCD is by far MUCH better in comparison.

Not only is it -this LCD- easier on my eyes, and doesn't drain the tan straight from the skin on my face after a late night session -haha- it's fine for games without any blurring or ghosting. Choppiness, yes a little I will admit... you can tell you'll never have as smooth as a gaming experience on an LCD as you will find with a CRT running at 100+fps with the refresh rate to match.

In my opinion, LCD has the following advantages :
- screen uniformity
- sharpness of text/high res graphics (low res images ... give me back the CRT)
- easier on my eyes
- apparent picture quality is increased (images just seem 'pop' out giving you that 'oohh')
- style ... they just look great

Now for my gripes :
- non full-screen DVD's ... peeve me off because black ... isn't really black
- Dead or stuck pixels ... absolutely intolerable, they drive me nuts
- lifespan so far goes to my CRT, my 1st LCD came with absolutely no dead/stuck pixels but in a 1 month period has now increased that to 2 sub pixels, and 1 annoying dead pixel
- how many will I have by the time my 3 year warranty is up?

Bring on OLED/SOLED .... forget CRT, I'll take my LCD anyday ... but this stuck/dead pixel and backlight crap has got to go.

On a final note ... pleeeasseee give me a 'perfect' LCD panel again. Do any of you have/know any info. about the latest 20" Viewsonics with the 16ms response? They have an absolute 0 dead pixel policy which I love .... anyone want a Dell 2001fp with a couple dead subpixels, and 1 dead pixel in the upper right corner? hehe

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Why are high end video cards coming with a VGA and DVI connector? Shouldn't they just give you dual DVI connections? You can go DVI>VGA with an adapter if you still have a CRT, but you can't do VGA>DVI. I have to buy a $600 card (X800XT PE) to get dual DVI. Or I can get a X850XT with a VGA and DVI connector for $470. WTH? Is it a money thing where it costs substantially more to implement a dual DVI solution?.

actually you can get a xfx 6600GT with dual DVI for ~200$

 

[Peter]

Since the usual graphics chips integrate only one DVI (TMDS) transmitter unit, and since there are still plenty of VGA monitors out there, making dual-DVI cards for everyone would inflate costs two-fold: (1) the 2nd TMDS transmitter would have to be a discrete chip, (2) the box would have to include one or even two DVI-VGA adapter dongles.

Besides, dual-DVI cards are available in most performance ranges, even as low as plain Radeon 9600. Use your money to vote!

 

[GTPoompt]

I still think CRT's are better for gaming. They are also much cheaper, as in you can find 17 in CRT's for 120 with 1600x1200 and 75 hz. Try and find an LCD that can do that resolution for that price. LCD's do seem more vibrant with colors and images though, buy you can probably tweak settings on the CRT and get the same result.

I find text and stuff fuzzy on the LCD's too, although the 60hz refresh rate on the LCD doesn't seem as pronounced as the 60hz on a CRT.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: rbV5
ATI's new MB chipset supports DVI, so it will be maybe a bit less of an issue when some board equipped with DVI onboard start showing up.

You mean like the one mentioned here and pictured here? VGA HD15 to keep the stone age CRTs working and a DVI-D connector to make the rest of us happy. Next step will be a single onboard DVI-I connector.

 

[kmmatney]

edit...

 

[CaMSpoon]

i owned a crt and its WAY BETTER! i just bought a viewsonic VP201s and i loved my HP 21 inch CRT way better!!! Games look thousand times better!!!!!!!!!!!! I get dizzy playing games with this crap LCD. Reason i bought this lcd becuase my CRT went out. My fault though : (

 

[Numb3rs]

WOW....

I just read this entire thread.... and there is ALOT of misinformation and topic degradation going on.... whats wrong with you peoples..? Albiet some good topics of debate.... by why hi-jack this thread ..?


The fundemental question is simple this: Does the DVI to D-SUB (VGA) connector degrade/lossy the signal ...?


If it doesnt, then this entire thread is basically moot, and all companies should make Dual DVI's because the dongle vs sepearate prod runs of 2 types of cards vs one is a factor none have seemed to look at.


I have a medical grade Monitor and I like the new 23" LCD's ... but I also must have the absolute best display possible with no artificing or ghosting... so when they come out with a 4ms 23" Sony Display... I will be ready ...!