Does this make sense?

[young boy]

I've been hearing of people wanting monitors to have multiple inputs, like 5 DVI-I, 3 HDMI, 3 display ports etc. Of course, these numbers are made up but I'm sure I've made my point. The main reason is to switch between PS3,2,1, xbox360, tv tuner and multiple computers they own. And, there are complains of input lag which is attributed to poor performing scalars when running below native resolutions. Not to forget in-bulit speakers.

So, why can't we just have a device which toggles the input and give 1 output to the monitor? This eliminates the need for monitors to have multiple inputs and it lowers the cost of the monitor.

Secondly, just have an external scalar. The advantage is :

• don't need to repeatly buy in-built scalars which comes with monitors (which lowers the cost)
• Because of that, you could buy a good, expensive unit as a long term investment.

And lastly for those who want in-built speakers, just buy a god damn headphone or loudspeaker. The former would probably sound much better than the in-built ones.

In short, why can't we separate out the parts? This reduces headache when choosing a monitor too.

What are the disadvantages besides space? And does this make sense?

Quotes from people. Note, I have edited them somewhat. The "<>" are my opinions.

Yes it makes sense, but it will not happen. The vendors want to differentiate themselves from their competitors, so they give us various features/defects to choose from.

<which is probably the only reason>

It does not really matter, because one display cannot do it all anyway. You need a good large HDTV for Blueray movies, PS3, XBox; and a good computer monitor for high res stuff like programming, CAD, and web browsing.

<hence input switches come into play. You can always use the monitor to do HDTV functions if you have an external scalar and switches if the monitor has only 1 input and poor scalar.>

Dave

Also, if you only needed one display for your entertainment needs - and there are some of us who do - screen manufacturers would face lower sales of their products. They'd rather prefer you'd buy another screen or two.
Like some have already pointed at, there is no one screen which can do it all well.
But I see what you're talking about.

<it boils down to this doesn't it?>

I myself wished I could have 2-3 PCs attached to the same screen. But I wouldn't advocate too many different ports on the monitor. That would complicate the circuit design. I'd say, let the industry finally settle for a standard that ALL screens could use and iron out all issues between platforms. Isn't that what HDMI was developed for?
Does anyone prefer DVI-I over HDMI for their PCs?

 

[kuyaglen]

What are the disadvantages besides space? And does this make sense?

Space
Setup time
Simplicity

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[jerb]

Monitor companys have a higher capacity for buying these things (not to mention R&D to design optimal ones for the screen). as a consumer you'd have to spend an arm and a leg for true digital switches, even decent analogue switches are expensive. the overall cost of your monitor would be much higher

go onto newegg and look at DVI switches, they arent cheap

 

[nomu]

I've been hearing of people wanting monitors to have multiple inputs, like 5 DVI-I, 3 HDMI, 3 display ports etc. Of course, these numbers are made up but I'm sure I've made my point. The main reason is to switch between PS3,2,1, xbox360, tv tuner and mutiple computers they own. And, there are complains of input lag which is attributed to slow scalars when running below native resolutions. Not to forget in-bulit speakers.

So, why can't we just have a device which toggles the input and give 1 output to the monitor? This eliminates the need for monitors to have multiple inputs and it lowers the cost.

Secondly, just have an external scalar. The advantage is :

• don't need to repeatly buy in-built scalars which comes with monitors (which lowers the cost)
• Because of that, you could buy a good, expensive unit as a long term investment.

And lastly for those who want in-built speakers, just buy a god damn headphone or loudspeaker. The former would probably sound much better than the in-built ones.

In short, why can't we separate out the parts?

Probably the most important reason is to reduce headache when choosing a monitor.

What are the disadvantages besides space? And does this make sense?

You already can. Buy a receiver. But there's no downside to having more inputs.

Built-in scalers are usually a good thing, though. Even if you run a set-up that doesn't use it, it's nice to have it just in case you need it.

 

[daveswantek]

Yes it makes sense, but it will not happen. The vendors want to differentiate them selves from their competitors, so they give us various features/defects to choose from.

It does not really matter, because one display cannot do it all anyway. You need a good large HDTV for Blueray movies, PS3, XBox; and a good computer monitor for high res stuff like programming, CAD, and web browsing.

You really cannot see the benifits of HD on anything less than a 40 incher.

Dave

 

[ND40oz]

You already can. Buy a receiver.

This, have your receiver do everything, if you want it to do scaling, then buy one that does scaling as well. Plenty of us have been doing this for years...

You really cannot see the benifits of HD on anything less than a 40 incher.

BS, it all depends on your visual acuity.

 

[young boy]

Why are input switches so expensive?

Yes it makes sense, but it will not happen. The vendors want to differentiate them selves from their competitors, so they give us various features/defects to choose from.

I think that's the only reason. Anyone agrees with him?

Monitor companys have a higher capacity for buying these things (not to mention R&D to design optimal ones for the screen). as a consumer you'd have to spend an arm and a leg for true digital switches, even decent analogue switches are expensive. the overall cost of your monitor would be much higher

go onto newegg and look at DVI switches, they arent cheap

Why? The scalars, additional inputs and speakers would be removed from the monitor.

 

[aShrubbery!]

Also, if you only needed one display for your entertainment needs - and there are some of us who do - screen manufacturers would face lower sales of their products. They'd rather prefer you'd buy another screen or two.
Like some have already pointed at, there is no one screen which can do it all well.
But I see what you're talking about.
I myself wished I could have 2-3 PCs attached to the same screen. Even though I wouldn't advocate too many different ports on the monitor. Would that not complicate the circuit design? I'd say, let the industry finally settle for a standard that ALL screens could use and iron out all issues between platforms. Isn't that what HDMI was developed for?
Does anyone prefer DVI-I over HDMI for their PCs?

 

[young boy]

Also, if you only needed one display for your entertainment needs - and there are some of us who do - screen manufacturers would face lower sales of their products.

That's the only reason isn't it?

Like some have already pointed at, there is no one screen which can do it all well.

I agree. In the water cooling world, it's like buying a lousy CPU block integrated on a perfect pump. Why can't you buy the perfect pump and a separate block. You get the best of both worlds. Plus, it makes more sense in the long run as replacement/upgrading is way cheaper.

Even though I wouldn't advocate too many different ports on the monitor. Would that not complicate the circuit design? I'd say, let the industry finally settle for a standard that ALL screens could use and iron out all issues between platforms. Isn't that what HDMI was developed for?

And because of this reason, people don't buy the dell 3007....

 

[young boy]

Bump