(07-13-2015, 01:29 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
Then what are YOU talking about because apparently all of our attempts to reply have gone off topic.
(07-13-2015, 01:31 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:29 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]You are still talking about backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is fine. I've been connecting my monitors with vga adapters for a while now.
Then what are YOU talking about because apparently all of our attempts to reply have gone off topic.
The fact that we have a cable that carries both analogue and digital signals, but our monitors can only use either analogue or digital. So why send both signals to begin with, and not just one?
why do ruu's posts always break the forums
(07-13-2015, 01:34 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:31 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Then what are YOU talking about because apparently all of our attempts to reply have gone off topic.
The fact that we have a cable that carries both analogue and digital signals, but our monitors can only use either analogue or digital. So why send both signals to begin with, and not just one?
Maybe somebody thought there would be an advantage to carrying both, but after it hit the market one never materialized.
(07-13-2015, 01:29 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]You are still talking about backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is fine. I've been connecting my monitors with vga adapters for a while now.
No no no- Backwards compatibility is what -I is for.... so..?
You aren't gonna have use for it, unless you explicitly need analogue alongside digital?
It's just for lessening cord clutter, in that case. owo;
It's silly, yes. Because it needs adapters to go vga, and adapters to go -D.
The one application which is fully defendable would be dual monitors ow o
Why you'd want anything to do with analogue baffles me at this point though. = w =
"It's for specific things, not breaking pins shoving it in the wrong hole"
(07-13-2015, 01:36 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:34 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that we have a cable that carries both analogue and digital signals, but our monitors can only use either analogue or digital. So why send both signals to begin with, and not just one?
Maybe somebody thought there would be an advantage to carrying both, but after it hit the market one never materialized.
Well, that was half the problem. The second half is: Why is it not possible to connect the cable that carries both, to the port that carries only digital? Concidering that the analogue signal wouldn't be used anyway.
(07-13-2015, 01:42 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:36 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe somebody thought there would be an advantage to carrying both, but after it hit the market one never materialized.
Well, that was half the problem. The second half is: Why is it not possible to connect the cable that carries both, to the port that carries only digital? Concidering that the analogue signal wouldn't be used anyway.
"Why is it not possible"
Because it has too many pins. owo
Bought a monitor with DVI-D?
Why the fluff did you get an -I cable?
Get an adapter.
(07-13-2015, 01:42 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:36 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe somebody thought there would be an advantage to carrying both, but after it hit the market one never materialized.
Well, that was half the problem. The second half is: Why is it not possible to connect the cable that carries both, to the port that carries only digital? Concidering that the analogue signal wouldn't be used anyway.
Probably because the cord will try and send the analogue anyways, which will ruin the digital.
(07-13-2015, 01:43 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:42 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that was half the problem. The second half is: Why is it not possible to connect the cable that carries both, to the port that carries only digital? Concidering that the analogue signal wouldn't be used anyway.
"Why is it not possible"
Because it has too many pins. owo
Bought a monitor with DVI-D?
Why the fluff did you get an -I cable?
Get an adapter.
The extra pins could simply go into inlets that don't connect to anything.
Also, this isn't a practical problem I'm having.
(07-13-2015, 01:43 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:42 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that was half the problem. The second half is: Why is it not possible to connect the cable that carries both, to the port that carries only digital? Concidering that the analogue signal wouldn't be used anyway.
Probably because the cord will try and send the analogue anyways, which will ruin the digital.
That makes so little sense it's quite frankly disturbing.
It's different wires inside the cable, that's why there are different pins - it's different signals - they have no interaction in between them. because they're different signals.
(07-13-2015, 01:46 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:43 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ]"Why is it not possible"
Because it has too many pins. owo
Bought a monitor with DVI-D?
Why the fluff did you get an -I cable?
Get an adapter.
The extra pins could simply go into inlets that don't connect to anything.
Also, this isn't a practical problem I'm having.
No you can't do that. One you'd be creating a whole new type of socket, two the DVI-I can't just turn off the unused pins, it's a cable that transmits signals in bulk, it doesn't have a microprocessor to control what goes where and how.
(07-13-2015, 01:46 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:43 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ]"Why is it not possible"
Because it has too many pins. owo
Bought a monitor with DVI-D?
Why the fluff did you get an -I cable?
Get an adapter.
The extra pins could simply go into inlets that don't connect to anything.
Also, this isn't a practical problem I'm having.
Then it's the dvi-D port which shouldn't exist, no?
Since the standard of having -I everywhere would allow people that need it to get splitters or adapters = w 0
(07-13-2015, 01:47 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:43 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Probably because the cord will try and send the analogue anyways, which will ruin the digital.
That makes so little sense it's quite frankly disturbing.
It's different wires inside the cable, that's why there are different pins - it's different signals - they have no interaction in between them. because they're different signals.
The signals all have to come together and be read somewhere, I don't see why it's stupid to think that introducing a signal that the system can't read would interfere with it's ability to read the signals it can.
(07-13-2015, 01:48 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:46 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]The extra pins could simply go into inlets that don't connect to anything.
Also, this isn't a practical problem I'm having.
No you can't do that. One you'd be creating a whole new type of socket, two the DVI-I can't just turn off the unused pins, it's a cable that transmits signals in bulk, it doesn't have a microprocessor to control what goes where and how.
Indeed, and if the cable isn't connected to anything, it simply won't transmit anything at all. Which is pretty much what we want, as we can't use the extra signal anyway.
(07-13-2015, 01:48 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:46 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]The extra pins could simply go into inlets that don't connect to anything.
Also, this isn't a practical problem I'm having.
No you can't do that. One you'd be creating a whole new type of socket, two the DVI-I can't just turn off the unused pins, it's a cable that transmits signals in bulk, it doesn't have a microprocessor to control what goes where and how.
owo;;;
owo;;;;;;
owo;;;;;;;
When you switch the channel, does it stop all the data of channels not being watched?
You're -just- not listening to the analogue when the digital is in effect. having blind ports would just make it look like a normal -D to the screen.
(07-13-2015, 01:51 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:48 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]No you can't do that. One you'd be creating a whole new type of socket, two the DVI-I can't just turn off the unused pins, it's a cable that transmits signals in bulk, it doesn't have a microprocessor to control what goes where and how.
Indeed, and if the cable isn't connected to anything, it simply won't transmit anything at all. Which is pretty much what we want, as we can't use the extra signal anyway.
That's assuming those extra pins are only for the analogue, which I have no way of knowing.
(07-13-2015, 01:52 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:48 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]No you can't do that. One you'd be creating a whole new type of socket, two the DVI-I can't just turn off the unused pins, it's a cable that transmits signals in bulk, it doesn't have a microprocessor to control what goes where and how.
owo;;;
owo;;;;;;
owo;;;;;;;
When you switch the channel, does it stop all the data of channels not being watched?
You're -just- not listening to the analogue when the digital is in effect. having blind ports would just make it look like a normal -D to the screen.
That's just what I'm saying. If you do it like this, DVI-I cables could work for both DVI-I and DVI-D ports.
(07-13-2015, 01:52 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:48 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]No you can't do that. One you'd be creating a whole new type of socket, two the DVI-I can't just turn off the unused pins, it's a cable that transmits signals in bulk, it doesn't have a microprocessor to control what goes where and how.
owo;;;
owo;;;;;;
owo;;;;;;;
When you switch the channel, does it stop all the data of channels not being watched?
You're -just- not listening to the analogue when the digital is in effect. having blind ports would just make it look like a normal -D to the screen.
Cable only has one pin though, it would have to interfere with itself. On topic though I wasn't aware that the socket was "smart" enough to do that.
neerrds
also, downloading WoT
(07-13-2015, 01:56 AM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2015, 01:52 AM)Rukii Wrote: [ -> ]owo;;;
owo;;;;;;
owo;;;;;;;
When you switch the channel, does it stop all the data of channels not being watched?
You're -just- not listening to the analogue when the digital is in effect. having blind ports would just make it look like a normal -D to the screen.
Cable only has one pin though, it would have to interfere with itself. On topic though I wasn't aware that the socket was "smart" enough to do that.
I'm pretty sure the socket isn't "smart", that's just how electricity works.