(07-13-2015, 12:25 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, but monitors usually only have DVI-D because you don't need the extra analogue signal. Problem is that DVI-I doesn't fit into DVI-D ports. So we have backwards compatibility, but no current compatibility. Makes sense...
Isn't that how CPUs work too? Newer generations of chips need motherboards with special plugs, but these plugs usually also work with the previous generation. I might be wrong there and backwards compatibility on CPUs isn't common, it definitely happens though.
(07-13-2015, 12:27 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't that how CPUs work too? Newer generations of chips need motherboards with special plugs, but these plugs usually also work with the previous generation. I might be wrong there and backwards compatibility on CPUs isn't common, it definitely happens though.
that's not the problem...
Sorry I didn't say what I was trying to say there. What I meant to say was that backwards compatibility is infinitely easier than current compatibility, you can't retroactively make old sockets compatible with new plugs, those are called new sockets, and to make the new plugs compatible with old sockets would mean handicapping the new plugs.
(07-13-2015, 12:31 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]that's not the problem...
Sorry I didn't say what I was trying to say there. What I meant to say was that backwards compatibility is infinitely easier than current compatibility, you can't retroactively make old sockets compatible with new plugs, those are called new sockets, and to make the new plugs compatible with old sockets would mean handicapping the new plugs.
You are talking about *forwards* compatibility, I was talking about current compatibility.
(07-13-2015, 12:34 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry I didn't say what I was trying to say there. What I meant to say was that backwards compatibility is infinitely easier than current compatibility, you can't retroactively make old sockets compatible with new plugs, those are called new sockets, and to make the new plugs compatible with old sockets would mean handicapping the new plugs.
You are talking about *forwards* compatibility, I was talking about current compatibility.
I don't understand the difference here, something either works with the old or the new.
(07-13-2015, 12:26 AM)Shaadaris Wrote: [ -> ]Hm. Skype is borked. When I go to the microsoft account login section it either freezes at loading repeatedly or the page will have no formatting at all and look like an 80s webpage or something.
(07-13-2015, 12:40 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand the difference here, something either works with the old or the new.
You've not seen the Dawn of War intro, which I suppose counts as a trailer.
The problem is that the new doesn't work with the new.
(07-13-2015, 12:40 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand the difference here, something either works with the old or the new.
You've not seen the Dawn of War intro, which I suppose counts as a trailer.
The problem is that the new doesn't work with the new.
Okay so let me make sure I understand this. System A is replaced by both system B and C, but B and C don't work with each other while working with A.
(07-13-2015, 12:42 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that the new doesn't work with the new.
The problem is that the new doesn't work with the new.
Okay so let me make sure I understand this. System A is replaced by both system B and C, but B and C don't work with each other while working with A.
Yes, something like that. But more like system B1 doesn't work with system B2.
(07-13-2015, 12:45 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Okay so let me make sure I understand this. System A is replaced by both system B and C, but B and C don't work with each other while working with A.
Yes, something like that. But more like system B1 doesn't work with system B2.
But if they both came out at roughly the same time, I'd bet they weren't both developed together, even if they are similar, and because there wasn't any cooperation in their R&D it only makes sense they don't work together.
Though that raises the question of why one didn't die out, but we can answer that one cynically by blaming it on corporate contracts.
(07-13-2015, 12:47 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, something like that. But more like system B1 doesn't work with system B2.
But if they both came out at roughly the same time, I'd bet they weren't both developed together, even if they are similar, and because there wasn't any cooperation in their R&D it only makes sense they don't work together.
Though that raises the question of why one didn't die out, but we can answer that one cynically by blaming it on corporate contracts.
(07-13-2015, 12:47 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, something like that. But more like system B1 doesn't work with system B2.
But if they both came out at roughly the same time, I'd bet they weren't both developed together, even if they are similar, and because there wasn't any cooperation in their R&D it only makes sense they don't work together.
Though that raises the question of why one didn't die out, but we can answer that one cynically by blaming it on corporate contracts.
(07-13-2015, 12:52 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]But if they both came out at roughly the same time, I'd bet they weren't both developed together, even if they are similar, and because there wasn't any cooperation in their R&D it only makes sense they don't work together.
Though that raises the question of why one didn't die out, but we can answer that one cynically by blaming it on corporate contracts.
What? That has nothing to do with anything.
(07-13-2015, 12:52 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]But if they both came out at roughly the same time, I'd bet they weren't both developed together, even if they are similar, and because there wasn't any cooperation in their R&D it only makes sense they don't work together.
Though that raises the question of why one didn't die out, but we can answer that one cynically by blaming it on corporate contracts.
What? That has nothing to do with anything.
Well if system B1 and B2 came out at roughly the same time to replace system A they were probably developed by companies X and Y respectively, since both companies are working separately to replace A there is no good reason for them to make B1 compatible with B2 or vice versa, though there is a chance of one being compatible with the other depending on how much these companies know about what the other is doing or the gap between the release of B1 and B2.
(07-13-2015, 12:02 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ]Because you need backwards compatibility when transferring and upgrading the generally accepted standards?
-I is both digital and analog, essentially hdmi (-sound) and vga, at the same time.
DVI transfers more than vga, which was and is needed for better monitors.
It's not exactly new, mind you <w<
Yes, but monitors usually only have DVI-D because you don't need the extra analogue signal. Problem is that DVI-I doesn't fit into DVI-D ports. So we have backwards compatibility, but no current compatibility. Makes sense...
owo;
Then you get dvi d cables..?
And besides, the standard is to have dvi-i dual out from your comp - and if you have a monitor with dvi-D, you're a bit silly if you get cables that aren't for your monitor. And even then, no - the standard for monitors is to have the universal -I
Some certain shit might only has the d, but then you have the vga right beside it if getting the right cabling is an issue, and you need analogue stuff...
(07-13-2015, 12:53 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]What? That has nothing to do with anything.
What? That has nothing to do with anything.
Well if system B1 and B2 came out at roughly the same time to replace system A they were probably developed by companies X and Y respectively, since both companies are working separately to replace A there is no good reason for them to make B1 compatible with B2 or vice versa, though there is a chance of one being compatible with the other depending on how much these companies know about what the other is doing or the gap between the release of B1 and B2.
Noooo. We are talking about the DVI connectors. There is DVI-I which carries both analogue and digital signals, and DVI-D which carries only digital signals.
Having a DVI-I output makes sense as you can connect either a DVI-D cable to extract the digital signal; Or ,with an adaptor, a VGA cable to extract analogue signals.
Having a DVI-I input on a monitor does not make sense as it would only be able to use one signal anyway.
Thus monitors only have DVI-D ports, usually.
Problem is: You can't connect a DVI-I cable to a DVI-D port.
So why do we need DVI-I cables if you can't connect them to anything?
(07-13-2015, 12:56 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Well if system B1 and B2 came out at roughly the same time to replace system A they were probably developed by companies X and Y respectively, since both companies are working separately to replace A there is no good reason for them to make B1 compatible with B2 or vice versa, though there is a chance of one being compatible with the other depending on how much these companies know about what the other is doing or the gap between the release of B1 and B2.
Noooo. We are talking about the DVI connectors. There is DVI-I which carries both analogue and digital signals, and DVI-D which carries only digital signals.
Having a DVI-I output makes sense as you can connect either a DVI-D cable to extract the digital signal; Or ,with an adaptor, a VGA cable to extract analogue signals.
Having a DVI-I input on a monitor does not make sense as it would only be able to use one signal anyway.
Thus monitors only have DVI-D ports, usually.
Problem is: You can't connect a DVI-I cable to a DVI-D port.
So why do we need DVI-I cables if you can't connect them to anything?
I'm sticking with my theory that the DVI-I folks weren't aware of DVI-D or just didn't want to make their product compatible with the competition. Then it blew up in their faces.
(07-13-2015, 01:08 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Noooo. We are talking about the DVI connectors. There is DVI-I which carries both analogue and digital signals, and DVI-D which carries only digital signals.
Having a DVI-I output makes sense as you can connect either a DVI-D cable to extract the digital signal; Or ,with an adaptor, a VGA cable to extract analogue signals.
Having a DVI-I input on a monitor does not make sense as it would only be able to use one signal anyway.
Thus monitors only have DVI-D ports, usually.
Problem is: You can't connect a DVI-I cable to a DVI-D port.
So why do we need DVI-I cables if you can't connect them to anything?
I'm sticking with my theory that the DVI-I folks weren't aware of DVI-D or just didn't want to make their product compatible with the competition. Then it blew up in their faces.
It's the same thing! And likely developed by the same people, too.
(07-13-2015, 01:11 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sticking with my theory that the DVI-I folks weren't aware of DVI-D or just didn't want to make their product compatible with the competition. Then it blew up in their faces.
It's the same thing! And likely developed by the same people, too.
Mate I'm not an engineer, you asked why we have both and I'm offering ideas.
(07-13-2015, 01:21 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ]Because re-usability of old hardware in businesses, then?
Since if you're switching between old and new monitors from when vga was still commonplace, so you will need adapters to use the newer computers with them?
It might just be out of necessity, as an alternative to let the transfer be more smooth.
It's hard introducing new stuff when people have things they'd rather not just be obsolete <w<
You are still talking about backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is fine. I've been connecting my monitors with vga adapters for a while now.