Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X1900 or 7900GT cards have no dsub?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 14, 2006 7:53:35 PM

Looking a cards for a new system and I just realized something: all these new cards (X1900 series or GF 7900 series) don't support "analog" monitors (no D-Sub connectors)! They only have dual DVI connectors.

Now I have to budget 300+ more dollars for a $300 for a LCD monitor!

Has anyone used those adapters to go from DVI-->D-Sub? Do they erode the quality of the picture at all? I do some gaming and a lot of photo retouching work so color and picture quality are key for me.

Thanks!
August 14, 2006 8:29:09 PM

Quote:
Has anyone used those adapters to go from DVI-->D-Sub? Do they erode the quality of the picture at all? I do some gaming and a lot of photo retouching work so color and picture quality are key for me.

You can use a D-sub, and it won't affect quality or performance at all.
August 14, 2006 8:29:58 PM

the dual-link dvi connectors on the cards carry both the digital and analog signals. When you use the adaptor for an analog monitor you are getting the same signal as you would w/ an old-school "straight analog" connection. It just disregards the digital signal. No difference, just another connector to use.

Have been using one on my old 9700pro AIW (only dvi) and a trinitron for years w/ no quality loss. Am using one on my 1900 and my 19" trinitron also w/ no issues.
Related resources
August 14, 2006 8:30:25 PM

Both cards come with two adapters RGB-DVI...
August 14, 2006 8:38:58 PM

Just make sure they are in the box, Open Box/Refurb stuff often is missing those components, and some manufacturers don't include them by default :roll: .
a b U Graphics card
August 14, 2006 8:39:54 PM

Not to scareyou or anything, but you can get bad connections so check to be sure. But it's just like anything else. Everything between point A and Z is a potnetial failure point, but for the most part they are fine (and I say that as someone who's used most possible combination of adapters at one point or another [in fact right now I'm using a DB-15 TO DVI-A connector for my P260 here at work]).
August 14, 2006 9:00:57 PM

Quote:
Looking a cards for a new system and I just realized something: all these new cards (X1900 series or GF 7900 series) don't support "analog" monitors (no D-Sub connectors)! They only have dual DVI connectors.

Now I have to budget 300+ more dollars for a $300 for a LCD monitor!

Has anyone used those adapters to go from DVI-->D-Sub? Do they erode the quality of the picture at all? I do some gaming and a lot of photo retouching work so color and picture quality are key for me.

Thanks!

The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting.
August 14, 2006 9:07:29 PM

Quote:
The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting.

proof? link?

afaik there is NO degredation as the signal is the exact same as if it had come from a d-sub connection. same dac's, same signal just w/ an additional connector in the path. No extra conversion means no signal diffs.
August 14, 2006 10:09:14 PM

Quote:
The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting.

proof? link?

afaik there is NO degredation as the signal is the exact same as if it had come from a d-sub connection. same dac's, same signal just w/ an additional connector in the path. No extra conversion means no signal diffs.
DVI only sends anolog if its DVI-A or DVI-I. If its DVI-D then it has to be converted. I shouldn't have said erodes but part of the signal isnt making its way to the monitor. The digital enhancements end at the connector and does cause the dead pixel affect only noticable in higher resolutions. In text with d-sub you'll see ghosting not so with DVI.

The cable itself is sensitive to external influences and may cause distortions but this is really outside of the fault of the adaptor.

The issue of proving a differance in DVI and d-sub isnt fair for LCD's only do 1 good resolution, most DVI monitors are LCD, but the 1 good resolutions of the LCD does show sharper image.
http://www.mysuperpc.com/lcd_flat_panel_monitor.shtml

Its true that the anolog signal isnt affect by the adaptor but dont expect it to be as good as DVI. I was simple stated the problems of anolog signals have at higher resolutions.
August 14, 2006 10:22:25 PM

Thanks for the info, guys!
August 14, 2006 10:23:30 PM

k, but in the context of the OP's question it was about an analog monitor (crt) running on the adaptor for the dvi. Of course lcd is losing the battle as it must conver to analog @ the card and then convert back to digital @ the monitor.

The question here (which promted my query as to if you could prove it) was why you though there was loss of quality on the config the OP was asking about. Seems there was a mix-up. ;) 
August 14, 2006 10:46:04 PM

Quote:
k, but in the context of the OP's question it was about an analog monitor (crt) running on the adaptor for the dvi. Of course lcd is losing the battle as it must conver to analog @ the card and then convert back to digital @ the monitor.

The question here (which promted my query as to if you could prove it) was why you though there was loss of quality on the config the OP was asking about. Seems there was a mix-up. ;) 

Its how you look at it IE the DVI digital enhancements want pass though the adapter. The quality only ends up as good as the anolog which compared to DVI starts falling short beyond 1600X1200 resolution.

Dead pixels and other things I pointed to start occuring around 1600X1200 so the OP will notice a different from DVI to D-sub at that point.
a b U Graphics card
August 14, 2006 11:04:22 PM

Quote:
DVI only sends anolog if its DVI-A or DVI-I. If its DVI-D then it has to be converted. I shouldn't have said erodes but part of the signal isnt making its way to the monitor. The digital enhancements end at the connector and does cause the dead pixel affect only noticable in higher resolutions. In text with d-sub you'll see ghosting not so with DVI.


TWO completely DIFFERENT issues.
You're talking about digital versus analogue, the OP was talking about Analogue versus Analogue, with the DB-15 versus a DB-15 adapter on a DVI-I connector (BTW, there are no DVI-D on the X1900/GF7900).

Quote:
The cable itself is sensitive to external influences and may cause distortions but this is really outside of the fault of the adaptor.


However the cable has nothing to do with it because the OP's situation would require the same cable, same length and same externalities to influnce both setups, the only difference would be the adapter, which in and of itself CAN cause issue just like any other part like I said between A to Z, but the generation of such adapter issues are rather minor, especially if you aren't trying something 'special' like a monitor 15+ft away.

Quote:
The issue of proving a differance in DVI and d-sub isnt...


Isn't relevant.

Quote:
Its true that the anolog signal isnt affect by the adaptor but dont expect it to be as good as DVI.


Depending on the card, resolution and cable length it can be better, so really that's too general a statement without specifying the "under most conditions".

Quote:
I was simple stated the problems of anolog signals have at higher resolutions.


At higher resolutions? Heck at HIGHER resolutions Single-Link DVI runs into more problems, so if you just say DVI in general, then you ignore the bandwidth limitations of DVI where Analgue would excel over a single-link solution.

Anywhoo, needless to say very little of your post was actually in reference to the OP's question, except for the complete discounting of interface degredation (which may be small enough to not matter, but does matter more than a solid piece of wire end to end even if it's effect is a X approaches 0), that is why Sojrner was saying, WTF !?!

Remember even the singal carried along the DVI cable is technically the Analogue porperties of the digital signal (degedation is an analogue pehnomenon in cable, the SIGNAL is digital, the method of transmission is Analogue). Tough to grasp but important to understand when talking about things like interferance and signal loss.
August 14, 2006 11:56:10 PM

Quote:
DVI only sends anolog if its DVI-A or DVI-I. If its DVI-D then it has to be converted. I shouldn't have said erodes but part of the signal isnt making its way to the monitor. The digital enhancements end at the connector and does cause the dead pixel affect only noticable in higher resolutions. In text with d-sub you'll see ghosting not so with DVI.


TWO completely DIFFERENT issues.
You're talking about digital versus analogue, the OP was talking about Analogue versus Analogue, with the DB-15 versus a DB-15 adapter on a DVI-I connector (BTW, there are no DVI-D on the X1900/GF7900).
True but I wasn't replying to the OP and the OP was budgeting $300+ for a LCD monitor.

Quote:
The cable itself is sensitive to external influences and may cause distortions but this is really outside of the fault of the adaptor.


However the cable has nothing to do with it because the OP's situation would require the same cable, same length and same externalities to influnce both setups, the only difference would be the adapter, which in and of itself CAN cause issue just like any other part like I said between A to Z, but the generation of such adapter issues are rather minor, especially if you aren't trying something 'special' like a monitor 15+ft away.
Again not replying to the OP but the cable may not be the same as the OP stated budgeting $300+ for a LCD if their was a difference.

Quote:
The issue of proving a differance in DVI and d-sub isnt...


Isn't relevant.
And again not replying to the OP but he did state budgeting $300+ on a LCD monitor.

Quote:
Its true that the anolog signal isnt affect by the adaptor but dont expect it to be as good as DVI.


Depending on the card, resolution and cable length it can be better, so really that's too general a statement without specifying the "under most conditions".
No joke I was point this out if the OP decides to buy the LCD monitor.

Quote:
I was simple stated the problems of anolog signals have at higher resolutions.


At higher resolutions? Heck at HIGHER resolutions Single-Link DVI runs into more problems, so if you just say DVI in general, then you ignore the bandwidth limitations of DVI where Analgue would excel over a single-link solution.
True but I wasn't comparing it in this statement but just stating the limitations.

Quote:
Anywhoo, needless to say very little of your post was actually in reference to the OP's question, except for the complete discounting of interface degredation (which may be small enough to not matter, but does matter more than a solid piece of wire end to end even if it's effect is a X approaches 0), that is why Sojrner was saying, WTF !?!

Again I wasn't replying to the OP but the OP did state budgeting $300+ for a LCD monitor.

Quote:
Remember even the singal carried along the DVI cable is technically the Analogue porperties of the digital signal (degedation is an analogue pehnomenon in cable, the SIGNAL is digital, the method of transmission is Analogue). Tough to grasp but important to understand when talking about things like interferance and signal loss.

True mostly as some carry both yet you can also have loss in digital where the lenth of the cable being longer than 5 meters.
August 15, 2006 2:56:55 AM

Quote:
...I wasn't replying to the OP...

actually, your very first post was a reply to the OP. So you are still @ an irrelevant place here. GrapeApe got exactly what I was getting @, you are just missing the entire point of this thread and the reasoning of the responses.

Not really sure what your point is actually, as no-one was trying to start an argument but you seem to have been successful @ starting one. Personally, as far as arguments go you seem to have the short end here. Replying w/ this:
Quote:
True but I wasn't replying to the OP and the OP was budgeting $300+ for a LCD monitor.

over and over again is not really doing much but sounding like you do not understand the argument. GrapeApe's very good reasoning on every other point aside... even if the OP is planning on an LCD purchase it would not be one w/ a dvi connection, and therefore not need the adapter. The only reason the OP would need the adapter is for a current monitor, and that is an analog monitor as stated. The purchase of an LCD w/ only an analog connection is worthless w/ prices as low as they are now, so that recollection of the $300 lcd budget is useless for this argument.

Now for the real kicker:
Quote:
Now I have to budget 300+ more dollars for a $300 for a LCD monitor!

this is a statement that translates to "because of my understanding that my current analog monitor will not work as good, I now have to get an LCD."

This is not a statement that the OP wants to get an lcd, but assumes that it is needed and so asks whether the reasoning it accurate. We here at the forums have tried to help by saying that using the adapter will work wonderfully w/ the current monitor. Thus negating the perceived need for a new lcd. (The wording here lends to the premis that the OP's current analog monitor is performing well enough for now)

again, the "$300 budget" is not a given. again, you are way off here man.

b/c you are not even on track w/ the OP, one wonders why you are jumping on those that are?

@ the OP:
Don't take this as a sign that your thread here is bad. On the contrary, many of us just like arguments and in the midst of responding to good questions like yours we take the time to refute garbage logic. ;) 
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2006 3:53:54 AM

Quote:

True but I wasn't replying to the OP


As Sojrner pointed out you were;

"(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Post subject: Re: X1900 or 7900GT cards have no dsub? [in reply to: graysky]"


You even quoted his text, hence the confusion/reaction.

Quote:
True but I wasn't comparing it in this statement but just stating the limitations.


But it's not analogue versus digital there alone because there's a cross-over between the two (more bandwidth can be carried across an analogue set of component BNC connectors than even dual link DVI). It's not the type signal alone that does it, but the combination of factors, that's the point.

Quote:
True mostly as some carry both yet you can also have loss in digital where the lenth of the cable being longer than 5 meters.


But what you're missing in my statement is that the transmission of the singal along the wires and their degredation is an ANALOGUE property of metal, not digital and it's that analogue property of the signal along transmission device that is affected by cable length, sure it's still 1s and 0s, but they are transmitted in waves or pulses and it's the effect on those that cause signal issues. You can increase the range by changing the carrier; convert it to light pulses on fibre instead of electomagnetic waves on wire and you get greater distance, but still have singal degredation issues although they are further out.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2006 3:57:38 AM

Quote:
On the contrary, many of us just like arguments and in the midst of responding to good questions like yours we take the time to refute garbage logic. ;) 


Exactly, although I don't like the argument part (prefer acquiesence) but want to refute bad/mis-info whenever possible.
August 15, 2006 4:24:43 AM

I've used them before and they work fine.
August 15, 2006 4:25:04 AM

Quote:
Exactly, although I don't like the argument part (prefer acquiesence) but want to refute bad/mis-info whenever possible.


for me argument=debate.

NOT to be confused w/ beligerent ranting and missinformed/foolish gainsaying.

While I respect acquiescence, I find that my personality does not achieve that state very well. ;)  Not that I condone the aforementioned deliberate contrary opinion simply to sidestep that complementary position, but when a debate rises up I find it hard to stand by when I can opine within it. Trying to keep it friendly is tough as many ppl do not appreciate a fine debate... they take "argument" to mean "fight".

This is where that passive position you mentioned comes in handy of course. Probably your point in mentioning it in the first place. ;) 
August 15, 2006 11:05:20 AM

Quote:
...I wasn't replying to the OP...

actually, your very first post was a reply to the OP. So you are still @ an irrelevant place here. GrapeApe got exactly what I was getting @, you are just missing the entire point of this thread and the reasoning of the responses.
Not really as the reply grapeape quoted was to you and your response to my post.

Quote:
Not really sure what your point is actually, as no-one was trying to start an argument but you seem to have been successful @ starting one. Personally, as far as arguments go you seem to have the short end here. Replying w/ this:

My point was your getting into a gray area where the adaptor doesnt change the anolog but what comes from the GPU doesnt have the digital parts to the D-sub monitor. The digital parts dont effect the image much but its loss in quality as my earlier link article states.

Quote:
True but I wasn't replying to the OP and the OP was budgeting $300+ for a LCD monitor.

over and over again is not really doing much but sounding like you do not understand the argument. GrapeApe's very good reasoning on every other point aside... even if the OP is planning on an LCD purchase it would not be one w/ a dvi connection, and therefore not need the adapter. The only reason the OP would need the adapter is for a current monitor, and that is an analog monitor as stated. The purchase of an LCD w/ only an analog connection is worthless w/ prices as low as they are now, so that recollection of the $300 lcd budget is useless for this argument.
I as most took the OP to mean if theres a difference in quality lost using the adaptor he would purchase the new LCD. I stated the differences so he could decide for himself.

Quote:
Now for the real kicker:
Now I have to budget 300+ more dollars for a $300 for a LCD monitor!

this is a statement that translates to "because of my understanding that my current analog monitor will not work as good, I now have to get an LCD."

This is not a statement that the OP wants to get an lcd, but assumes that it is needed and so asks whether the reasoning it accurate. We here at the forums have tried to help by saying that using the adapter will work wonderfully w/ the current monitor. Thus negating the perceived need for a new lcd. (The wording here lends to the premis that the OP's current analog monitor is performing well enough for now)
Its a statement to if theres a lose in quality he would buy the LCD. The OP knows he doesn't need to buy a new monitor else he wouldnt have know about the adaptor. He went on to talk about the adaptor, which a need is something you cannot do without and is incorrect, and wants to know if there is a difference.

Quote:
again, the "$300 budget" is not a given. again, you are way off here man.

b/c you are not even on track w/ the OP, one wonders why you are jumping on those that are?

Sorry but you replyed to my post so dont try and turn it around on me. I'm defending my quote to the OP and your defending your reply to me. Can you put words in other peoples mouth, one being you, as the OP has said nothing of being off track and the only reply he or she made was to thanked us for the information.
Quote:
Thanks for the info, guys!


Quote:
@ the OP:
Don't take this as a sign that your thread here is bad. On the contrary, many of us just like arguments and in the midst of responding to good questions like yours we take the time to refute garbage logic. ;) 

This is a good thread but it does seem that we have hijacked it for this argument. I guess you dont understand the logic of garbage in, garbage out. Your reply to my post was garbage so natural everything following is garbage.
August 15, 2006 11:13:11 AM

Quote:

True but I wasn't replying to the OP


As Sojrner pointed out you were;

"(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Post subject: Re: X1900 or 7900GT cards have no dsub? [in reply to: graysky]"

No if you look at my quote it was in reply to sojrner. Here's the only reply I made to the OP.
Quote:
The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting.

Erode was a bad word to use but it was part of the OP's question and I was simply stating my response for him to understand easly their will not be a difference unless at high resolutions.

Quote:
proof? link?

Quote:
The issue of proving a differance in DVI and d-sub isnt fair for LCD's only do 1 good resolution, most DVI monitors are LCD, but the 1 good resolutions of the LCD does show sharper image.
http://www.mysuperpc.com/lcd_flat_panel_monitor.shtml

If you read the link you'll note the article states sharper picture for the 1 good LCD resolution.
Quote:
It's definitely true that FPD screen images look their sharpest at their native resolution. But it's also true that they look excellent and better than a CRT at some of the other resolutions, but not all. There are some resolutions where the screen images will not be pleasing and will actually look worse than a CRT. The problem with viewing on an FPD that has a native resolution of 1600x1200 is that the images are too tiny for comfortable viewing. Quite sharp, quite clear, and quite tiny. Younger eyes may not find them so uncomfortable.


Quote:
You even quoted his text, hence the confusion/reaction.

Pryer information we have seen is always fair game. My second and third posts has no quote from graysky and those are the post you replyed to.

Quote:
True but I wasn't comparing it in this statement but just stating the limitations.


But it's not analogue versus digital there alone because there's a cross-over between the two (more bandwidth can be carried across an analogue set of component BNC connectors than even dual link DVI). It's not the type signal alone that does it, but the combination of factors, that's the point.
Its is if he buys the LCD.

Quote:
True mostly as some carry both yet you can also have loss in digital where the lenth of the cable being longer than 5 meters.


But what you're missing in my statement is that the transmission of the singal along the wires and their degredation is an ANALOGUE property of metal, not digital and it's that analogue property of the signal along transmission device that is affected by cable length, sure it's still 1s and 0s, but they are transmitted in waves or pulses and it's the effect on those that cause signal issues. You can increase the range by changing the carrier; convert it to light pulses on fibre instead of electomagnetic waves on wire and you get greater distance, but still have singal degredation issues although they are further out.
No I truly didnt miss the fact that degredations is an analogue property. You miss the fact that using the adaptor doesnt allow the transmission of the digital information thous making a difference in the final picture where the OP to buy the LCD.
August 15, 2006 11:15:34 AM

Quote:
On the contrary, many of us just like arguments and in the midst of responding to good questions like yours we take the time to refute garbage logic. ;) 


Exactly, although I don't like the argument part (prefer acquiesence) but want to refute bad/mis-info whenever possible.
Thats kind of your fault for total taking 1 side as the issue is total gray area due to the adaptor doesn't allow transmit of the digital information. In conflict resolution the third party should never take sides. I guess your correct that my reply was to the OP so why isnt it him and me in this argument? :wink: You have to be correct in refuting bad/mis-information else the garbage just keeps comming.
August 15, 2006 2:45:44 PM

Quote:
You miss the fact that using the adaptor doesnt allow the transmission of the digital information thous making a difference in the final picture where the OP to buy the LCD.


that is NOT the issue here! Dang man. Your argument/response to Grape and myself did nothing to refute what we said, and only proves that you do not understand what is being said here. It does not matter if the adapter blocks the digital signal! The OP is connecting an ANALOG monitor, and it will work fine.

regardless of possible future purchases, that was the original question. You brought in the whole lcd/digital thing that is irrelevant and it was already proved how it is not a factor in my last post. We have proved you wrong w/ simple logic and yet you continue on your sandy foundation.

Quote:
I guess your correct that my reply was to the OP so why isnt it him and me in this argument? Wink You have to be correct in refuting bad/mis-information else the garbage just keeps comming.

We are here to help answer the OP's question. The reason we are arguing w/ you (or rather stating logic and getting nothing as you are not really arguing but ranting) is b/c you are stating missaligned ideas that cloud the real issues of connecting a native analog monitor (NOT an lcd) to a dvi video card.

Quote:
Sorry but you replyed to my post so dont try and turn it around on me. I'm defending my quote to the OP and your defending your reply to me. Can you put words in other peoples mouth, one being you, as the OP has said nothing of being off track and the only reply he or she made was to thanked us for the information.

Actually, my first two responses to you were first to ask for links to establish what you were getting at (was not clear why you were saying what you were) and to then confirm that yes, an LCD would lose quality on an analog connection. (any analog connection, adapter or not) After that confirmation I pointed out that the OP wanted the reverse of that. You simply do not get it man... No-one was attacking you, but simply trying to point out that you are answering the wrong question. Sometimes it is OK to be wrong, even when you think you are right. ;) 

regardless, the OP's question has been answered.

[/argument]
August 15, 2006 5:57:10 PM

Quote:
You miss the fact that using the adaptor doesnt allow the transmission of the digital information thous making a difference in the final picture where the OP to buy the LCD.


that is NOT the issue here! Dang man. Your argument/response to Grape and myself did nothing to refute what we said, and only proves that you do not understand what is being said here. It does not matter if the adapter blocks the digital signal! The OP is connecting an ANALOG monitor, and it will work fine.
What is it you want me to refute? What you and grape said makes know difference as all you say is posted to the OP. The adaptor blocking the digital, for the price of the GPU, could mean alot as to him or her buying the new LCD. Ghosting text may be a reason for buying the LCD over using a adapter.

Quote:
regardless of possible future purchases, that was the original question. You brought in the whole lcd/digital thing that is irrelevant and it was already proved how it is not a factor in my last post. We have proved you wrong w/ simple logic and yet you continue on your sandy foundation.

Is that some king of new fuzzy logic in which you say it and its so. Grape brought up with the OP only wanting anolog to anolog.
Quote:
TWO completely DIFFERENT issues.
You're talking about digital versus analogue, the OP was talking about Analogue versus Analogue, with the DB-15 versus a DB-15 adapter on a DVI-I connector (BTW, there are no DVI-D on the X1900/GF7900).

If the OP buy the new monitor then we are talking about digital versus anolog.

Quote:
I guess your correct that my reply was to the OP so why isnt it him and me in this argument? Wink You have to be correct in refuting bad/mis-information else the garbage just keeps comming.

We are here to help answer the OP's question. The reason we are arguing w/ you (or rather stating logic and getting nothing as you are not really arguing but ranting) is b/c you are stating missaligned ideas that cloud the real issues of connecting a native analog monitor (NOT an lcd) to a dvi video card.
There both at issue do to the OP planing to buy 1 if their was a difference.

Quote:
Sorry but you replyed to my post so dont try and turn it around on me. I'm defending my quote to the OP and your defending your reply to me. Can you put words in other peoples mouth, one being you, as the OP has said nothing of being off track and the only reply he or she made was to thanked us for the information.

Actually, my first two responses to you were first to ask for links to establish what you were getting at (was not clear why you were saying what you were) and to then confirm that yes, an LCD would lose quality on an analog connection. (any analog connection, adapter or not) After that confirmation I pointed out that the OP wanted the reverse of that. You simply do not get it man... No-one was attacking you, but simply trying to point out that you are answering the wrong question. Sometimes it is OK to be wrong, even when you think you are right. ;) 
True but with the 1900 or 7900 to a new LCD there would be no analog adapter and the link stated a sharper picture with the DVI. You also gave mis-information on DVI having anolog as DVI-d doesn't.

Quote:
regardless, the OP's question has been answered.

My lord the worlds going to end, we agree on something. I think grape may have made matter worse causing a lot of confusion.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2006 6:46:02 PM

Well first of all learn to quote, I didn't say the segment you quoted me in, and the reason there's even 1 extra post beyond Sojrner's WTF post is because you can't relate to your quoting the original poster and then replying about something not relevant.

Let's clear up one other thing you seem to have missed (making that the AvsD/AvsA issue and then.....);

The original poster was not LOOKING to buy a new LCD but was under the impression that now he was FORCED to buy a new LCD because there was no D-SUB, look at the section you quoted again;

Looking a cards for a new system and I just realized something: all these new cards (X1900 series or GF 7900 series) don't support "analog" monitors (no D-Sub connectors)! They only have dual DVI connectors.

Now I have to budget 300+ more dollars for a $300 for a LCD monitor!


I would say that that phrase alone indicate not his pleasure at looking to buy a shiny new LCD monitor, but his exasperation at the possibility that he may be forced to buy a new LCD because the new cards do not have a DB-15 connector. He then goes on to ask about the Adapter degrading the signal, and your reply to him (don't say you weren't for the umpteenth time because you quoted him in an 'in reply to' thread) was that they do erode quality, not that they might, just like a poor DVI cable might, not that digital is better than analogue for carrying information to a digital panel (no that argument came later in defence of this), your statement was a declarative statement to which you had nothing to back it up other than the type of signal, which once again has nothing to do with the OP's question about the adapter, to which you were directly replying.

You can try to twist the posts around, but the fact remains, the OP was asking specifically about the adapter degrading/eroding the quality of the signal (which would be the analogue portion of the signal) and he did not say he WANT to buy a new LCD but that NOW he HAD to budget for a new LCD because of this.

Seems pretty straight forward, and really the point is, either you made a mistake in what you said in reply to the OP, or your reading/comprehension & quoting skillz suck, causing unnecessary confusion for others reading this thread. Either way it's not the responsability of other to read your mind and try to get some unwritten subtext to what you post so they can figure out what you're trying to say not what you're actually writing. :roll:
August 15, 2006 7:07:02 PM

Quote:
Well first of all learn to quote, I didn't say the segment you quoted me in, and the reason there's even 1 extra post beyond Sojrner's WTF post is because you can't relate to your quoting the original poster and then replying about something not relevant.

Funny thing I copied it straight from your post. Whats not relevant is your ranting.

Quote:
Let's clear up one other thing you seem to have missed (making that the AvsD/AvsA issue and then.....);

You saying doesnt make it so but you made it a issue when you posted.

Quote:
The original poster was not LOOKING to buy a new LCD but was under the impression that now he was FORCED to buy a new LCD because there was no D-SUB, look at the section you quoted again;

Funny thing is how did he know about the adapter then? He know he didnt have to buy and LCD but was going to if the quality was poor.

Quote:
Looking a cards for a new system and I just realized something: all these new cards (X1900 series or GF 7900 series) don't support "analog" monitors (no D-Sub connectors)! They only have dual DVI connectors.

Now I have to budget 300+ more dollars for a $300 for a LCD monitor!

Quote:
I would say that that phrase alone indicate not his pleasure at looking to buy a shiny new LCD monitor, but his exasperation at the possibility that he may be forced to buy a new LCD because the new cards do not have a DB-15 connector. He then goes on to ask about the Adapter degrading the signal, and your reply to him (don't say you weren't for the umpteenth time because you quoted him in an 'in reply to' thread) was that they do erode quality, not that they might, just like a poor DVI cable might, not that digital is better than analogue for carrying information to a digital panel (no that argument came later in defence of this), your statement was a declarative statement to which you had nothing to back it up other than the type of signal, which once again has nothing to do with the OP's question about the adapter, to which you were directly replying.

True until you add the OP's next phrase which total shows he know what they are and how they work.[/quote]
Quote:
Has anyone used those adapters to go from DVI-->D-Sub?

Quality was what he was asking.


Quote:
You can try to twist the posts around, but the fact remains, the OP was asking specifically about the adapter degrading/eroding the quality of the signal (which would be the analogue portion of the signal) and he did not say he WANT to buy a new LCD but that NOW he HAD to budget for a new LCD because of this.

True but degrading anolog and total not using the digital is about the same as the LCD would have a better image. Twisting the posts around? You just try to confuse the topic and really only made matter far worse. There wasn't even a major disagrement until you posted.

Quote:
Seems pretty straight forward, and really the point is, either you made a mistake in what you said in reply to the OP, or your reading/comprehension & quoting skillz suck, causing unnecessary confusion for others reading this thread. Either way it's not the responsability of other to read your mind and try to get some unwritten subtext to what you post so they can figure out what you're trying to say not what you're actually writing. :roll:

No mistake and sojrner wanted me to prove using greater than 1600X1200 is the point where you notice the quality.
August 15, 2006 7:16:39 PM

Quote:
Seems pretty straight forward, and really the point is, either you made a mistake in what you said in reply to the OP, or your reading/comprehension & quoting skillz suck, causing unnecessary confusion for others reading this thread.


Door #2 Bob.
August 15, 2006 7:18:56 PM

Quote:
Seems pretty straight forward, and really the point is, either you made a mistake in what you said in reply to the OP, or your reading/comprehension & quoting skillz suck, causing unnecessary confusion for others reading this thread.


Door #2 Bob.
That would be the Door for Grape as he does nothing but rants and caused the confusion in the first place.
August 15, 2006 7:39:58 PM

Quote:
@ the OP: Don't take this as a sign that your thread here is bad. On the contrary, many of us just like arguments and in the midst of responding to good questions like yours we take the time to refute garbage logic. ;) 


It's cool. Again, thanks to all for the info, all!
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2006 8:05:24 PM

Quote:
Funny thing I copied it straight from your post. Whats not relevant is your ranting.


Funny, cause... you didn't.

This post , contained the following section that is NOT mine;

TheGreatGrapeApe wrote:
regardless of possible future purchases, that was the original question. You brought in the whole lcd/digital thing that is irrelevant and it was already proved how it is not a factor in my last post. We have proved you wrong w/ simple logic and yet you continue on your sandy foundation.


In fact it's Sojrner's from THIS post.

I'm sure that's spelled out clearly enough for even you. :roll:

Quote:
You saying doesnt make it so


Right well my saying it makes it more so than you saying it, because unlike you, I'm pretty much sticking to the topic, and with facts.

Quote:
Funny thing is how did he know about the adapter then?


I don't know, but obviously he had some idea that they existed as that was the second part of his question. It's not really relevant to your statements though now is it? Why didn't you ask him originally instead of making silly statements?

Quote:
He know he didnt have to buy and LCD but was going to if the quality was poor.


Sure, that sounds about right. If in his mind the DVI->Dsub/DB-15 adapter made the quality look too terrible for him, then that would be the other option. If an adapter made my 1920x1440 monitor look like a 640x480 TV out, heck I'd consider it too.

Quote:
True until you add the OP's next phrase which total shows he know what they are and how they work.

Has anyone used those adapters to go from DVI-->D-Sub?

Quality was what he was asking.

It doesn;t show he know how they work, only that he knows that they exist, and obviously he's ASKING about whether there are issues with the ADAPTER (not digital versus analogue). Once again your reading comprehension skillz SUCK!

Quote:
True but degrading anolog and total not using the digital is about the same as the LCD would have a better image.


Irrelevant, and also unproveable for the context of his statement. No LCD has the same colour range and contrast as the TOP of the line Proffesional CRTs, so your statement about LCD is mypoic of the truth even if it were what he was talking about. You don't even know what his current monitor is, nor even what he's using it for, so you have no way of knowing what the 'better image' would be based on the limited information you have. Once again putting the cart before the horse boyo!

Quote:
Twisting the posts around? You just try to confuse the topic and really only made matter far worse. There wasn't even a major disagrement until you posted.


Actually until you posted your unrelated points the issue was pretty much handled, and before I posted the OP was prettymuch done with the thread, saying "Thanks for the info, guys!"

Really the only person to inject confusion was your confusion about Eroding quality, to which Sojrner said post a link (which you still haven't) to supoprt your generalized false statement.

Quote:
No mistake and sojrner wanted me to prove using greater than 1600X1200 is the point where you notice the quality.


No, I doubt it's just that segment as he quoted the FULL text, why would you once again ASSUME what he wanted;

"The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting."

Not just your carefully edited selection which you either did to hide the fact that that first part is glaringly generalized without any supportable evidence, or you're being purposefully obtuse to try and save yourself instead of saying, "Ooops my mistake".

Anywhoo, I think the proof of your poor quoting and comprehension skillz is there for all to see, and personally I don't care what other writing errors you wish to add to the list, but essentially the OP's question was answers and you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself and asking others to come in too. Forget it, your generalized statements were challenged to be shown as irrelevant to the question, and that's all that matters, the only thing left is for you to keep posting circular arguments about truisms that don't even relate to the thread. Well, you enjoy that. :roll:
August 15, 2006 9:07:46 PM

Quote:
Funny thing I copied it straight from your post. Whats not relevant is your ranting.


Funny, cause... you didn't.

This post , contained the following section that is NOT mine;

TheGreatGrapeApe wrote:
regardless of possible future purchases, that was the original question. You brought in the whole lcd/digital thing that is irrelevant and it was already proved how it is not a factor in my last post. We have proved you wrong w/ simple logic and yet you continue on your sandy foundation.


In fact it's Sojrner's from THIS post.

I'm sure that's spelled out clearly enough for even you. :roll:
That true heres your post which was right below this one.
Quote:

TWO completely DIFFERENT issues.
You're talking about digital versus analogue, the OP was talking about Analogue versus Analogue, with the DB-15 versus a DB-15 adapter on a DVI-I connector (BTW, there are no DVI-D on the X1900/GF7900).


Quote:
You saying doesnt make it so


Right well my saying it makes it more so than you saying it, because unlike you, I'm pretty much sticking to the topic, and with facts.
True but I didnt say it you did.

Quote:
Funny thing is how did he know about the adapter then?


I don't know, but obviously he had some idea that they existed as that was the second part of his question. It's not really relevant to your statements though now is it? Why didn't you ask him originally instead of making silly statements?
Yes it refutes your Analogue versus Analogue quoted above.

Quote:
He know he didnt have to buy and LCD but was going to if the quality was poor.


Sure, that sounds about right. If in his mind the DVI->Dsub/DB-15 adapter made the quality look too terrible for him, then that would be the other option. If an adapter made my 1920x1440 monitor look like a 640x480 TV out, heck I'd consider it too.
Or if he does text editing and doesn't want ghosting.

Quote:
True until you add the OP's next phrase which total shows he know what they are and how they work.

Has anyone used those adapters to go from DVI-->D-Sub?

Quality was what he was asking.

It doesn;t show he know how they work, only that he knows that they exist, and obviously he's ASKING about whether there are issues with the ADAPTER (not digital versus analogue). Once again your reading comprehension skillz SUCK!
I had to point this out to you so your comprehension skills suck. Were I said he knows how they work Im refering to how they attach to the system and cable. Your comprehension again.

Quote:
True but degrading anolog and total not using the digital is about the same as the LCD would have a better image.


Irrelevant, and also unproveable for the context of his statement. No LCD has the same colour range and contrast as the TOP of the line Proffesional CRTs, so your statement about LCD is mypoic of the truth even if it were what he was talking about. You don't even know what his current monitor is, nor even what he's using it for, so you have no way of knowing what the 'better image' would be based on the limited information you have. Once again putting the cart before the horse boyo!
Finaly I have got you up to speed. Thats the same thing I told sojrner which I stated due to LCD's having only 1 good resolution.

Quote:
Twisting the posts around? You just try to confuse the topic and really only made matter far worse. There wasn't even a major disagrement until you posted.


Actually until you posted your unrelated points the issue was pretty much handled, and before I posted the OP was prettymuch done with the thread, saying "Thanks for the info, guys!"
Why has he only replyed to me? Your correct it was handled before you posted.

Quote:
Really the only person to inject confusion was your confusion about Eroding quality, to which Sojrner said post a link (which you still haven't) to supoprt your generalized false statement.

That was a reply to the OP which he used and I didnt want to confuse him with the issue due to the adapter stopping the digital IE Image wise about the same.
Quote:
No mistake and sojrner wanted me to prove using greater than 1600X1200 is the point where you notice the quality.


No, I doubt it's just that segment as he quoted the FULL text, why would you once again ASSUME what he wanted;
Possible the same reason as you assume.

Quote:
"The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting."

Not just your carefully edited selection which you either did to hide the fact that that first part is glaringly generalized without any supportable evidence, or you're being purposefully obtuse to try and save yourself instead of saying, "Ooops my mistake".

What are doing trying to make excusses for jumping in over your head.

Quote:
Anywhoo, I think the proof of your poor quoting and comprehension skillz is there for all to see, and personally I don't care what other writing errors you wish to add to the list, but essentially the OP's question was answers and you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself and asking others to come in too. Forget it, your generalized statements were challenged to be shown as irrelevant to the question, and that's all that matters, the only thing left is for you to keep posting circular arguments about truisms that don't even relate to the thread. Well, you enjoy that. :roll:

Your the only extra dumb enough to jump in the middle and take a side. Kids in grade school learn not to jump into other peoples problems. Your posts have all been irrelevant due to confusing the fact the OP was considering buying a LCD. :wink:
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2006 9:21:26 PM

Quote:
What are doing trying to make excusses for jumping in over your head.


LOL! :roll:

Talk about projecting, really, nice try bud, but you're a joke. Sofar all the errors have come from your postings; really, it's obvious the only one in over their head here is you. So, I'll just sit back and watch you sink into oblivion.
August 15, 2006 9:48:01 PM

wow, I told myself I would not jump back in here... and here I am.

GrapeApe and I are talking about one thing, connecting an analog (crt) monitor to the dvi-i (no dvi-d on these cards) w/ an adapter. You are on a different track completely.

I answered the OP in the begining w/ the fact that the adapter would not degrade his quality.

You said it would (above 1600x1200), and then changed when I questioned you about it to say that you were talking about lcd monitors connected to that analog adapter. You then started the response train and tried to justify your logic and completely ignored the query I made about proof for the analog degradation on an analog monitor and not an LCD.

GrapeApe jumped in about there and said that you were wrong, and further explained my "wtf?" post that caused your change to the LCD story.

At that point you jumped on your repetition thing of "I was not responding to the OP" and "I am talking about LCDs" ad nauseum.

Each of GrapeApe's and my responses have been to point out that you are not (now) talking about the same thing that we are. Throughout the rest of this thread you have continually ignored any statement that shows where you went wrong and I really think GrapeApe was right... you are being obtuse.

Like I said before, and GrapeApe reiterated; it is ok to be wrong. So you made a mistake, not a big deal. Yet you make it a big deal here and will not see anything we are saying. Continuation of this is futility at best.

Again, no-one has dissagreed w/ you that connecting an lcd to an analog adapter is bad quality. Yet you continue this argument with no real point. You ignore any real logic and just keep saying the same thing and are not comprehending what we are saying. We do not care what the lcd does on an analog connection! That is it man! There is nothing more hidden in here. lol

The right thing to do here is to just say "hey man, sorry for the confusion" or even just leave this alone altogether. Of course I doubt you will, so flame away.
August 16, 2006 1:03:00 AM

Quote:
What are doing trying to make excusses for jumping in over your head.


LOL! :roll:

Talk about projecting, really, nice try bud, but you're a joke. Sofar all the errors have come from your postings; really, it's obvious the only one in over their head here is you. So, I'll just sit back and watch you sink into oblivion.
Errors and yet you stated.

Quote:
True but degrading anolog and total not using the digital is about the same as the LCD would have a better image.



Quote:
Irrelevant, and also unproveable for the context of his statement. No LCD has the same colour range and contrast as the TOP of the line Proffesional CRTs, so your statement about LCD is mypoic of the truth even if it were what he was talking about. You don't even know what his current monitor is, nor even what he's using it for, so you have no way of knowing what the 'better image' would be based on the limited information you have. Once again putting the cart before the horse boyo!


Quote:
Finaly I have got you up to speed. Thats the same thing I told sojrner which I stated due to LCD's having only 1 good resolution.

Errors and yet you state the same as I did in you cant compare DVI to anolog due to LCD's having 1 good resolution to a CRT. The only joke is sour grape and you lied saying the last post was your last. Is sitting back another lie Grape? I dont get over my head as this is fun to me.
August 16, 2006 1:17:26 AM

Quote:
wow, I told myself I would not jump back in here... and here I am.

GrapeApe and I are talking about one thing, connecting an analog (crt) monitor to the dvi-i (no dvi-d on these cards) w/ an adapter. You are on a different track completely.

Grape got me off track as you state due to his rant about no DVI stated theory from the OP.

Quote:
I answered the OP in the begining w/ the fact that the adapter would not degrade his quality.

You said it would (above 1600x1200), and then changed when I questioned you about it to say that you were talking about lcd monitors connected to that analog adapter. You then started the response train and tried to justify your logic and completely ignored the query I made about proof for the analog degradation on an analog monitor and not an LCD.

yes and I believe I supplyed you with a lot of information and a link.

Quote:
GrapeApe jumped in about there and said that you were wrong, and further explained my "wtf?" post that caused your change to the LCD story.

At that point your wrong as its both and grape stated it wasnt about DVI to DVI but DVI to anolog. I guess he doesnt understand the writen word.

Quote:
At that point you jumped on your repetition thing of "I was not responding to the OP" and "I am talking about LCDs" ad nauseum.

Again grape total ignored the LCD would be purchased if the quality was off.

Quote:
Each of GrapeApe's and my responses have been to point out that you are not (now) talking about the same thing that we are. Throughout the rest of this thread you have continually ignored any statement that shows where you went wrong and I really think GrapeApe was right... you are being obtuse.

Yet I gave you proof with with a link stating a sharper Image. What do you want? I think you just dont want to see the truth and grape is in a world of confusion.

Quote:
Like I said before, and GrapeApe reiterated; it is ok to be wrong. So you made a mistake, not a big deal. Yet you make it a big deal here and will not see anything we are saying. Continuation of this is futility at best.

Did you even look at the link? Did you read about the ghosting or dead pixel issues with anolog? Im not the 1 that got us off on the LCD but grape wouldn't even know it was in the OP's post if it bite him.

Quote:
Again, no-one has dissagreed w/ you that connecting an lcd to an analog adapter is bad quality. Yet you continue this argument with no real point. You ignore any real logic and just keep saying the same thing and are not comprehending what we are saying. We do not care what the lcd does on an analog connection! That is it man! There is nothing more hidden in here. lol
You asked for me to prove it and the link is on my second post do with it what you will.

Quote:
The right thing to do here is to just say "hey man, sorry for the confusion" or even just leave this alone altogether. Of course I doubt you will, so flame away.
Hey man, sorry grape confused us.
August 16, 2006 5:07:17 AM

Quote:
I answered the OP in the begining w/ the fact that the adapter would not degrade his quality.

You said it would (above 1600x1200), and then changed when I questioned you about it to say that you were talking about lcd monitors connected to that analog adapter. You then started the response train and tried to justify your logic and completely ignored the query I made about proof for the analog degradation on an analog monitor and not an LCD.

yes and I believe I supplyed you with a lot of information and a link.
Quote:
Yet I gave you proof with with a link stating a sharper Image. What do you want?
Quote:
Did you even look at the link?
Quote:
You asked for me to prove it and the link is on my second post do with it what you will.


Your link is about an LCD monitor to an analog connection.
FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME: NO-ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT!!!!!

[segue]
I ignored the article because:

#1 (most important) it does not answer this statement, which is what I asked for proof of:
Quote:
The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting.
I see this statement as the begining of your baseless argument. Bad premis, no proof... need I say more?

#2 it is not relevant to this discussion regarding an analog monitor connecting to a DVI-I card, and

#3 it makes erroneous statements like:
"ATI All-In-Wonder models, such as the ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 Pro, do not have a DVI connector at all" (and I am looking @ my 9700pro AIW w/ a nice functional DVI-I on it) or
"Even though CRT's are quite good, the viewing quality on a flat panel LCD monitor is just amazing" (when most standard and all professional crt's will beat an LCD in every monitor dicipline) and
"It's definitely true that FPD screen images look their sharpest at their native resolution. But it's also true that they look excellent and better than a CRT at some of the other resolutions" (when ANY interpolation makes an LCD look worse than any crt that I have ever seen)

It is quite simply not a reliable source for facts, and for a "computer building guide" that is scary. Quite frankly, no-one should build a "super pc" like that.
[/segue]

If you have not figured out by now that you are arguing up the wrong tree, then I cannot help you further.

Quote:
At that point your wrong as its both and grape stated it wasnt about DVI to DVI but DVI to anolog. I guess he doesnt understand the writen word.

aparently no-one understands it but you...
August 16, 2006 11:07:24 AM

Quote:
I answered the OP in the begining w/ the fact that the adapter would not degrade his quality.

You said it would (above 1600x1200), and then changed when I questioned you about it to say that you were talking about lcd monitors connected to that analog adapter. You then started the response train and tried to justify your logic and completely ignored the query I made about proof for the analog degradation on an analog monitor and not an LCD.

yes and I believe I supplyed you with a lot of information and a link.
Quote:
Yet I gave you proof with with a link stating a sharper Image. What do you want?
Quote:
Did you even look at the link?
Quote:
You asked for me to prove it and the link is on my second post do with it what you will.


Your link is about an LCD monitor to an analog connection.
FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME: NO-ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT!!!!!

[segue]
I ignored the article because:

#1 (most important) it does not answer this statement, which is what I asked for proof of:
Quote:
The adapters work great and yes they do erode quality but only at high resolution. You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting.
I see this statement as the begining of your baseless argument. Bad premis, no proof... need I say more?

#2 it is not relevant to this discussion regarding an analog monitor connecting to a DVI-I card, and

#3 it makes erroneous statements like:
"ATI All-In-Wonder models, such as the ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 Pro, do not have a DVI connector at all" (and I am looking @ my 9700pro AIW w/ a nice functional DVI-I on it) or
"Even though CRT's are quite good, the viewing quality on a flat panel LCD monitor is just amazing" (when most standard and all professional crt's will beat an LCD in every monitor dicipline) and
"It's definitely true that FPD screen images look their sharpest at their native resolution. But it's also true that they look excellent and better than a CRT at some of the other resolutions" (when ANY interpolation makes an LCD look worse than any crt that I have ever seen)

It is quite simply not a reliable source for facts, and for a "computer building guide" that is scary. Quite frankly, no-one should build a "super pc" like that.
[/segue]

If you have not figured out by now that you are arguing up the wrong tree, then I cannot help you further.

Quote:
At that point your wrong as its both and grape stated it wasnt about DVI to DVI but DVI to anolog. I guess he doesnt understand the writen word.

aparently no-one understands it but you...
Ghosting and dead pixels is anolog and has nothing to do with LCD. The link states the problems with anolog and you asked for proof so im telling you thats the only way it could possible be proved. Let me see if I can explain it this way, CRT means all D-sub, and no way to test without an adapter. Now tell me how to prove it without, as you asked for proof, not using LCD's? Sounds to me like you want me to prove it and tie my hands at the same time with what I can use.

Ok heres you another Link.
Quote:
Because of the conversion from digital to analog, in general, CRT monitors deliver less accurate image quality than LCDs.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3174_7-5136369-1.html
August 16, 2006 2:07:55 PM

Quote:
Ghosting and dead pixels is anolog and has nothing to do with LCD. The link states the problems with anolog and you asked for proof so im telling you thats the only way it could possible be proved. Let me see if I can explain it this way, CRT means all D-sub, and no way to test without an adapter. Now tell me how to prove it without, as you asked for proof, not using LCD's? Sounds to me like you want me to prove it and tie my hands at the same time with what I can use.

The OP does not have an LCD. Therefore use of an LCD is irrelevant. Period. Your quote about anything over 1600x1200 was in reference to a crt. If it was not then it makes no sense as use of ANY resolution on an LCD other than its native is lesser quality. If your LCD has a native res of 1600x1200 then you cannot go over it. LCD's only support lower res interpolation. Thus that statement of yours "You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting." is NOT FOR AN LCD! (if 1600 was the native, then it can't go over that... if a higher res was native then it will only improve going higher) So I am asking for proof to back that up! duh! Do you not see what you yourself are writing?

Quote:
Ok heres you another Link.
Because of the conversion from digital to analog, in general, CRT monitors deliver less accurate image quality than LCDs.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3174_7-5136369-1.html
That would be more accurate saying "Because of the conversion from digital to analog, CRT monitors get a lesser signal quality then LCDs... but because CRTs have a higher display quality in general they more then make up for the signal difficiency and display a more accurate image"

The only time you can even get close to a crt in an lcd is with a proffessional level panel costing thousands. And then it is only in ONE dicipline, like static image display. Once an LCD is taylored to that, fast moving graphics or movies look terrible on it. A crt simply does it all better. (not making this an argument for or against LCDs, just saying that there is a reason you still see pro's using crts even today)

either way, that article also does not carry proof of your statement that an analog crt loses quality when connected to a dvi port and running over 1600x1200. In fact, you have been proving an argument this entire time that no-one is arguing against... as stated before, you simply cannot admit that you made a mistake. Instead you stick to your sinking (sunk) ship and hope that it will float.
August 16, 2006 3:19:43 PM

Quote:
Elbert wrote:
Ghosting and dead pixels is anolog and has nothing to do with LCD. The link states the problems with anolog and you asked for proof so im telling you thats the only way it could possible be proved. Let me see if I can explain it this way, CRT means all D-sub, and no way to test without an adapter. Now tell me how to prove it without, as you asked for proof, not using LCD's? Sounds to me like you want me to prove it and tie my hands at the same time with what I can use.

The OP does not have an LCD. Therefore use of an LCD is irrelevant. Period. Your quote about anything over 1600x1200 was in reference to a crt. If it was not then it makes no sense as use of ANY resolution on an LCD other than its native is lesser quality. If your LCD has a native res of 1600x1200 then you cannot go over it. LCD's only support lower res interpolation. Thus that statement of yours "You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting." is NOT FOR AN LCD! (if 1600 was the native, then it can't go over that... if a higher res was native then it will only improve going higher) So I am asking for proof to back that up! duh! Do you not see what you yourself are writing?

Again find me a CRT that uses DVI as a LCD is the only way to compare a difference period.

Quote:
Quote:
Ok heres you another Link.
Quote:
Because of the conversion from digital to analog, in general, CRT monitors deliver less accurate image quality than LCDs.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3174_7-5136369-1.html

That would be more accurate saying "Because of the conversion from digital to analog, CRT monitors get a lesser signal quality then LCDs... but because CRTs have a higher display quality in general they more then make up for the signal difficiency and display a more accurate image"

The only time you can even get close to a crt in an lcd is with a proffessional level panel costing thousands. And then it is only in ONE dicipline, like static image display. Once an LCD is taylored to that, fast moving graphics or movies look terrible on it. A crt simply does it all better. (not making this an argument for or against LCDs, just saying that there is a reason you still see pro's using crts even today)

either way, that article also does not carry proof of your statement that an analog crt loses quality when connected to a dvi port and running over 1600x1200. In fact, you have been proving an argument this entire time that no-one is arguing against... as stated before, you simply cannot admit that you made a mistake. Instead you stick to your sinking (sunk) ship and hope that it will float.

Are you arguing with what the link states? Lose from digital to anologe due to conversion is how its stated.
August 16, 2006 3:55:15 PM

Quote:
Again find me a CRT that uses DVI as a LCD is the only way to compare a difference period.

Then how can you make the statement that "You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting"? I have already proven that this statement does not work for an LCD. So how do you expect to prove that statement if you can't do it w/o an LCD?

Quote:
Are you arguing with what the link states? Lose from digital to anologe due to conversion is how its stated.

I was just making comment on the wording of the article, and then said that it proved nothing on your stand and is irrelevant for this discussion.

Frankly, I am not sure why I am arguing here anymore.
You are not listening.
You are not seeing logic.
You are just a waste of my time.
August 16, 2006 4:02:26 PM

Quote:
Elbert wrote:
Again find me a CRT that uses DVI as a LCD is the only way to compare a difference period.

Then how can you make the statement that "You'll not see any differance unless you monitor goes beyond the 1600X1200 setting"? I have already proven that this statement does not work for an LCD. So how do you expect to prove that statement if you can't do it w/o an LCD?

Ive seen no proof just your word on that. Prove that crt has a better image than a lcd that cost at the OP's price $300 at its native resolution.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you arguing with what the link states? Lose from digital to anologe due to conversion is how its stated.

I was just making comment on the wording of the article, and then said that it proved nothing on your stand and is irrelevant for this discussion.

I think a loss from digital to anologe is going from a 1900 or 7900 though an adapter is it not.

Quote:
Frankly, I am not sure why I am arguing here anymore.

Again Im sorry for grape bring confussion to the issue. That could be my fault as ive push his buttons before.
August 16, 2006 4:17:45 PM

Elbert, you messed up, man. Whatever your intentions were (whether to help the OP or to show off your knowledge, ahem...) your posts in this thread serve no useful purpose.

Simply put, the OP should keep his CRT, get the adapter and have fun with his games/photo editing or whatever.

As prozac26 said in the very first reply to the OP's post:

Quote:
You can use a D-sub, and it won't affect quality or performance at all.


While this statement may not be all-encompassing and totally and completely accurate in every imaginable situation, it answers the OP's question correctly and precisely.

Yours was a smart-ass post that would only confuse the OP and be of no use to him.

So, do us all a favor and stop arguing. Really.

EDIT: And avoid smart-ass posting in the future. One of the main purposes of this forum as I see it is to offer good solutions to specific problems without getting unnecessarily technical. If several gurus are talking major technical detail it's one thing. But if a confused newcomer asks a simple question like "Do I need to shell out additional $300 on a new LCD or will this adapter suffice?" there is no need whatsoever to get super technical.
August 16, 2006 4:29:57 PM

Quote:
Elbert, you messed up, man. Whatever your intentions were (whether to help the OP or to show off your knowledge, ahem...) your posts in this thread serve no useful purpose.

Simply put, the OP should keep his CRT, get the adapter and have fun with his games/photo editing or whatever.

As prozac26 said in the very first reply to the OP's post:

Really? I would say more than likly he is as most none crossfire or sli systems run at 1600X1200. I ment in no way for the OP to not use his CRT but to let him make up his own mind with the facts.


Quote:
Quote:
You can use a D-sub, and it won't affect quality or performance at all.


While this statement may not be all-encompassing and totally and completely accurate in every imaginable situation, it answers the OP's question correctly and precisely.

I guess everyone does what they are told. I show people the information and let them make up their mind but I guess you like to tell people what to do.

Quote:
Yours was a smart-ass post that would only confuse the OP and be of no use to him.

So, do us all a favor and stop arguing. Really.

I guess you telling me will make me, atleast you may think so. Try letting people make up their own mind else your just a know it all $mart-a$$.

Quote:
EDIT: And avoid smart-ass posting in the future. One of the main purposes of this forum as I see it is to offer good solutions to specific problems without getting unnecessarily technical. If several gurus are talking major technical detail it's one thing. But if a confused newcomer asks a simple question like "Do I need to shell out additional $300 on a new LCD or will this adapter suffice?" there is no need whatsoever to get super technical.

You think what were talking about is major technical? My 13 year old son knows everything about what we have wrote here. When did 1600X1200, ghosting text, and dead pixels become major technical? If we were to start talking about what each pin does then that gets a little technical and its way above this stuff.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2006 5:31:38 PM

I was just going to sit back, but OMG you post alot of false BS, so just had to comment again, sorry if that ruins you CHI.

Quote:
Ghosting and dead pixels is anolog and has nothing to do with LCD.


DEAD Pixel has nothing to do with LCD? :roll:

DAMN the ELECTRON GUN isn't changing colour at this point on my CRT, must be a dead pixel!

And while ghosting and dead pixels are analogue 'properties', they are restricted to LCDs and similar display technologies which display digital and analgoue signals. Perhaps you're confusing these with burn-in, but who knows with you probably one of 30 other tangents no one thought of. :roll:

Quote:
Again find me a CRT that uses DVI as a LCD is the only way to compare a difference period.


Like I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, before all your BS, I'm using one right now, the IBM P260, which is a 21" CRT that uses a DVI connector. So perhaps once again you should rephrase to match what you're trying to say (perhaps digital vs analogue CRT not DB-15 vs DVI?), not what you're actually typing which is crap!

Anywhoo, just want to point out once again how your flailing around posting that crap just piles up more of your BS ontop of the hole you're digging and buries you deeper and deeper.
August 16, 2006 5:39:58 PM

Quote:
I was just going to sit back, but OMG you post alot of false BS, so just had to comment again, sorry if that ruins you CHI.

I know I couldnt trust you to tell the truth.

Quote:
Elbert wrote:
Ghosting and dead pixels is anolog and has nothing to do with LCD.



Quote:
DEAD Pixel has nothing to do with LCD? Rolling Eyes

There you go back on the LCD. Were not on LCD sour grape its crt with the dead pixels.

Quote:
DAMN the ELECTRON GUN is DEAD at this point in my CRT, must be a dead pixel!

And while ghosting and dead pixels are analogue 'properties', they are restricted to LCDs and similar display technologies which display digital and analgoue signals.

Anywhoo, just want to point out once again how your flailing around posting that crap just piles up more of your BS ontop of the hole you're digging and buries you deeper and deeper.

I dont have time to catch you up again as sojrner and I are close to a end.
August 16, 2006 5:49:09 PM

Quote:
I dont have time to catch you up again as sojrner and I are close to a end.


8O :?: :lol: 
August 16, 2006 5:50:37 PM

Quote:
EDIT: And avoid smart-ass posting in the future. One of the main purposes of this forum as I see it is to offer good solutions to specific problems without getting unnecessarily technical. If several gurus are talking major technical detail it's one thing. But if a confused newcomer asks a simple question like "Do I need to shell out additional $300 on a new LCD or will this adapter suffice?" there is no need whatsoever to get super technical.


agreed
August 16, 2006 5:52:44 PM

Quote:
I dont have time to catch you up again as sojrner and I are close to a end.


8O :?: :lol: 
yes, I had fun saying to him too.
August 16, 2006 5:53:51 PM

Quote:
EDIT: And avoid smart-ass posting in the future. One of the main purposes of this forum as I see it is to offer good solutions to specific problems without getting unnecessarily technical. If several gurus are talking major technical detail it's one thing. But if a confused newcomer asks a simple question like "Do I need to shell out additional $300 on a new LCD or will this adapter suffice?" there is no need whatsoever to get super technical.


agreed
I agree too but what were talking about isnt that technical. Well sour grape aside.
August 16, 2006 6:21:32 PM

Quote:
I agree too but what were talking about isnt that technical. Well sour grape aside.


I think you should stop trying to explain whatever it is you wanted to say originally.

I will be honest with you: As I read your posts I find your English almost impossible to understand with all the typos, grammar mistakes, erroneous contractions, zero punctuation and what not (not to mention that many of your technical statements are incorrect.)

If English is not your mother tongue, your lack of clarity is understandable. I do not mean to insult or demean you.

But if English IS your mother tongue I think you should either

1) Take care to phrase your sentences more carefully;
2) Check your spelling; OR
3) Stop posting altogether.

Either way, please understand that you are annoying a lot of people right now. It would serve you well to stop doing that if you enjoy being a member of this community.

Finally, you should apologize before GreatGrapeApe for your name calling.

This thread must end. Soon.
!