Why do so many people still use VGA cables to connect to a monitor instead of DVI and HDMI?

[froggyboy604]

I think a lot of people and companies still choose VGA cables because they are more durable/reliable than DVI and HDMI, and slightly cheaper than DVI and some more expensive HDMI cables. You can get a VGA cable for $3 on eBay, but a DVI and HDMI cable cost $7 or more on eBay.

People also like to use what they are used to using like VGA for PC monitors, rather than learning about a new cable type like DVI and HDMI for PC monitor.

A lot of older cheap and used/refurbished desktop and laptop computers and monitors still use VGA. But, most newer cheap computers like mini computers, laptops, and tablets these days only come with one HDMI port.

I seen some VGA cables which are over 10 years old, and they still work without problems. DVI cables have a lot of tiny pin connectors which may more likely break if you are not careful when removing and inserting them into the ports. HDMI cables also have many tiny pins which can break if the cable is poorly made or pull at the cable very hard.

 

[Demon_Skeith]

I take it DVI is a high quality of a cable?

 

[froggyboy604]

I take it DVI is a high quality of a cable?

DVI carries a digital signal instead of an VGA analog signal which picture quality can decrease if there is poor shielding on the cable, or a lot of electronic and magnetic interference.

DVI is similar to HDMI, but DVI can't transmit an audio signal like HDMI, and DVI probably can't display 4K and higher resolutions as well because the maximum bandwidth of DVI video chips may not support 4K. DVI is now considered older tech, so no company is making newer DVI chips, firmware, and cables which can support 4K at 60hz or higher because most people who want to display a 4K video would of upgraded to HDMI 2.0 cables, and video cards which can support 4K resolutions.

 

[Mascot Tom]

Sync on green VGA was the video standard that first unified the monitor-to-computer connections. Back in the 80s, there were more proprietary monitor hookups than there is useless garbage in a BuzzFeed article. Every computer had one screen resolution that took one monitor, and that was it. If you were lucky, your home computer had composite or RCA connections that may work, if the stars are aligned perfectly, but only as you were sacrificing a small goat. Even then, the image quality looked like a finger painting on a leather jacket using the dust of a dry chalk board in place of anything that even remotely resembled square pixels.

It wasn't until after Steve Jobs returned to Apple Computer in 1997 that the two major computing standards (PowerPC Macs and x86 PCs) began using the same VGA connector.

Projectors and Laptops are nearly all VGA even to this day. I bought a brand new ASUS laptop just the other day, and it only had options for VGA out and HDMI 2.0. Why? Well, just look at it:

DVI is just too big. You can't fit DVI on anything with a small form factor at all. And technically speaking, it isn't really a massive leap forward technologically. You could theoretically send a 100% digital signal through a VGA cable, if the bus its connected to is expecting one. DVI has way too many pins on a connector that's almost twice the size. Not to mention VGA analog can do 1080p/60FPS like it's a walk in the park. DVI doesn't do anything a VGA analog couldn't.

 

[Demon_Skeith]

yeah, my 1k asus gaming laptop has hdmi and vga, but I doubt you could get DVI on it.

 

[froggyboy604]

yeah, my 1k asus gaming laptop has hdmi and vga, but I doubt you could get DVI on it.

There are cheap VGA to DVI adapters which let you use DVI on a laptop, so DVI is not needed for laptops which don't have a big case.

Most people will probably buy a HDMI to DVI cable because HDMI to DVI cables can be used on devices like the Raspberry Pi, Blu-Ray players, and game consoles which don't have VGA ports, and only HDMI, composite, and its own video cable type like the video cables for the PS2 which uses its own cable.

 

[VirusZero]

Mascot Tom is right. DVI isn't used much because there's not a lot it really does. HDMI can do 4k video and audio. VGA handles pretty high quality video alone. So why put a third port that does basically the same as VGA (but less than HDMI) and isn't nearly as well supported?

VGA on the other hand, while older, is still supported by many things. Projectors (which may not need audio, some may not even have speakers) can make do with VGA. Which, in turn, keeps their cost down and makes them kinda useful for more people.

When it comes to an adapter, why though? If DVI doesn't do anything spectacularly better than VGA why bother with it? If there's going to be interference it's still possibly going to show up since you have to start at VGA anyway. And if HDMI is an option on the laptop (my $300 cheap laptop from 2015 has HDMI in it... basically anything past 2013 is likely to also) then why bother with DVI?
Even in the examples you give, why bother going to DVI at all if you can go for HDMI? I mean if you need an adapter you might as well go with the newer/more versatile HDMI. (Since many newer monitors and TVs support HDMI anyway. Basically anything 2008-2010 for TVs is likely to have HDMI, monitors are probably similar for adoption rates.)

 

[froggyboy604]

Mascot Tom is right. DVI isn't used much because there's not a lot it really does. HDMI can do 4k video and audio. VGA handles pretty high quality video alone. So why put a third port that does basically the same as VGA (but less than HDMI) and isn't nearly as well supported?

VGA on the other hand, while older, is still supported by many things. Projectors (which may not need audio, some may not even have speakers) can make do with VGA. Which, in turn, keeps their cost down and makes them kinda useful for more people.

When it comes to an adapter, why though? If DVI doesn't do anything spectacularly better than VGA why bother with it? If there's going to be interference it's still possibly going to show up since you have to start at VGA anyway. And if HDMI is an option on the laptop (my $300 cheap laptop from 2015 has HDMI in it... basically anything past 2013 is likely to also) then why bother with DVI?
Even in the examples you give, why bother going to DVI at all if you can go for HDMI? I mean if you need an adapter you might as well go with the newer/more versatile HDMI. (Since many newer monitors and TVs support HDMI anyway. Basically anything 2008-2010 for TVs is likely to have HDMI, monitors are probably similar for adoption rates.)

In public places DVI maybe better than HDMI because of the more durable design, and better screw fasteners on DVI cables.

DVI cables' metal connector shield and connection pins looks more durable than HDMI cables. The metal connector shield on HDMI cables can fall off sometimes, but it is harder for DVI cable's metal connector shield to fall off or get damaged.

There are fastening screws on the ends of DVI cables, so you can screw them in video cards and monitors which have video cable fastening holes on the DVI connectors. Screwed in DVI can't be un-plugged by someone or an animal like a dog pulling on the DVI cable place where there are people like kids who pull on stuff when they are bored, and dogs who pull on cables as a toy.