Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Displays

Goodbye, VGA 356

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the we-definitely-knew-thee dept.
jones_supa writes "Leading PC companies have expressed their will to finally start kicking out legacy display interfaces. Intel plans to end support of LVDS in 2013 and VGA in 2015 in its PC client processors and chipsets. While the large installed base of existing VGA monitors and projectors will likely keep VGA on PC back panels beyond 2015, PC and display panel makers are in strong support of this transition. The DisplayPort connector interface provides backwards and forwards compatibility by supporting VGA and DVI output via certified adapters, while also providing new capabilities such as single connector multi-monitor support."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Goodbye, VGA

Comments Filter:
  • Conference rooms (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dimer0 (461593) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @09:45AM (#34499724)

    Only place I use VGA anymore (and have used in the past 4-5 years) is for overhead projectors in conference rooms.

  • Re:Conference rooms (Score:5, Interesting)

    by snookerhog (1835110) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @09:49AM (#34499764)
    i am assuming that shitty old VGA projectors will continue to cause problems for my presentations well beyond 2015, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.
  • by jimicus (737525) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @09:50AM (#34499772)

    Macs have DisplayPort connectors, and have done for some time.

    Though I wouldn't be too surprised to see this continue for some time - hell, you can still buy a PC with PS/2 connectors, FFS.

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @10:28AM (#34500210) Journal

    Many still are VGA-only to save on costs

    That doesn't make sense. Driving a TFT from VGA requires a lot more circuitry than driving it from DVI-D. That's why the Apple monitors only had DVI-D input; it was cheaper to produce. In reality, the cheap TFT monitors are VGA only for differentiation: they're convinced people that it's worth paying a premium to be able to drive your digital display from a digital signal, and so people do.

    DisplayPort should be even cheaper. It's designed to be easy to use to drive a typical TFT and, unlike DVI and HDMI, doesn't require you to pay a royalty to use. Monitors that are DisplayPort-only are going to be cheaper to produce than any of the other options. Of course, that doesn't mean that they'll cost less to consumers...

  • DPCP/HDCP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tepples (727027) <tepples@nOSpAM.gmail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2010 @11:43AM (#34501188) Homepage Journal

    DisplayPort [...] doesn't require you to pay a royalty to use.

    Until the Hollywood-endorsed operating system used on the majority of home and office PCs fails to recognize DisplayPort monitors that fail to implement Hollywood-endorsed display encryption. DPCP and HDCP both have a hefty royalty.

  • by Clomer (644284) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @12:18PM (#34501798)
    I work as a student employee at my university. Over the last summer, we replaced about 500 computers across campus (most of our student lab machines). The new machines only have Display Port as their graphics interface, and we have had lots of problems with it. Lots of various software glitches, and even some significant hardware issues as well.

    One issue is that the physical connector is not very sturdy. One good whap (which is not uncommon in an academic environment) and the connector gets destroyed, sometimes taking the graphics card with it. We've had to replace several graphics cards because of this. This was not a problem with our previous batch of machines, which used *gasp* VGA. There are other issues as well, such that there was actually some serious discussion at upper levels of management about the possibility of returning the whole lot of computers (remember, about 500) and demanding the replacement use either VGA or DVI. In the end, they decided that this would be more trouble than it was worth, and that we'd just deal with Display Port issues as they arise. Which, they continue to do.

    As for myself, I have no intention of ever using Display Port as my primary display interface on my personal machines unless there is literally no other option. In my opinion, DVI is superior in every respect that matters, and even VGA is preferable.
  • by Marrow (195242) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @01:58PM (#34503730)

    Not everything is better digital. Analog is a good format for long cable runs like running a display via CAT-5. I don't like the change to display port. It requires you waste money if you want to change formats from DVI to VGA because the DP->DVI connectors will convert to VGA. So you need a DVI converter AND a VGA converter. At 25 bucks a pop.

    DVI and DisplayPort are both more expensive in most situations. The monitors (as mentioned above) do not come with DVI cables.

    All in All, I see this as a Loss for the consumer.

    The big advantage for DisplayPort is to drive screens that dont even exist yet. Resolutions that DVI cannot handle. But what needs those 1080p+ resolutions yet? Desktop monitors do not. Bigscreens do not. What then is the point?

  • by Rudeboy777 (214749) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @03:47PM (#34505384)
    Those LCDs that have been running for 9 years probably cost over $1000. Look how the Wal-mart mentality has driven down the price of LCDs today. I can get a 19" LCD for UNDER $100!!! but, importantly, with only a 1-year warranty. There is no way the components could be a comparable quality in the throwaway units on the shelf today.

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...