07-13-2015, 01:11 AM
(07-13-2015, 01:08 AM)Jim_Clonk 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.(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?
http://ask.fm/Surge753
I answer questions. snark provided free of charge.
Most hated member of the nexus, irritation and/or ragequit guaranteed or your money back.
"IF I DO NOT RETURN INFORM MY HUMAN COHABITANTS THAT I FEEL STRONGLY FOR THEM"
I answer questions. snark provided free of charge.
Most hated member of the nexus, irritation and/or ragequit guaranteed or your money back.
"IF I DO NOT RETURN INFORM MY HUMAN COHABITANTS THAT I FEEL STRONGLY FOR THEM"