Xbox 360: Component, Composit, VGA... no DVI/HDMI
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
kyleb said:
Not only that but I thought one of the benefits of digital over analog was that you needn't worry about signal strength as much. Either you get a signal or you don't. Well, a bit of an overstatement...
Also check out www.pacificcable.com DVI/HDMI cables aren't that pricey and they'll only get cheaper.
If you don't have a TDMS transmitter on the graphic card, they can release all "HD Pack" they want, you won't have digital signal !WarLox said:
I can't imagine that Microsoft won't change that !!
On my PTAE-700 (screen 2.40m), connected on my PC, there is a world between VGA and HDMI connections.
And you honestly believe the proprietary xbox360 DVI and HDMI cables that have the xbox360 multi A/V connector on one end and DVI or HDMI connector on the other would be cheaper than a DVI or HDMI cable you'd be free to buy from any manufacturer?PC-Engine said:
The HDMI is an option for PS3 users too, the standard connector id there if you need it, the cable is optional.
You make no sense (again).
rabidrabbit said:
And again you're missing the point. If MS included only a DVI output then that means they would have to include the DVI cable out of the box. This increases the cost of the console. If OTOH they included a multi AV out, they could just include some cheap composite cables out of the box to keep said box cheap. If someone wanted to use the higher quality digital output capability, they would buy the necessary cables.
PC-Engine said:
OH... MY... GOD... I just imagined X360 games running through composite cables...
*dies*Really, Xbox360, PS3 and "composite cables" should NOT go in the same sentence.
You'd think by 2005 99% of the people out there would have AT LEAST RGB inputs. They made a big fuss about the HD era, but it seems Sony are the only ones that are actually fully embracing the HD era.
2 ports (one analog and one digital) would not drive the cost of the X360 up. Or do you think Sony are going bankrupt for putting 2 HDMI AND a multi-video out on PS3?
I agree on keeping the cost down by not including some circuitry (and to me 2 HDMI is a bit too much) but at least a DVI-out in 2005 for a machine that is supposed to be "the HD machine of the future" is not asking for much.
Will the video-out on X360 be digital too? Cause no matter what you say about "future cables", if the circuitry is analog-only, there's not gonna be a DVI or HDMI cable to buy for X360.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Ty said:
You can use much longer VGA-cable and still get a picture whereas DVI-cable has to be fairly short, especially if it's only single link, so the situation is just the opposite.
Well, they wouldn't and you know that.PC-Engine said:
Just as Sony won't be supplying a HDMI cable with the PS3.
It has nothing to do with whether the console has a single multi A/V port or a Multi A/V+dedicated ports, they'll ship the console with the most compatible cable anyway, which is the crappy composite cable.
However, I don't know, maybe because of the "HD-Era" they'll ship with something better. If they shipped with component, would it be compatibel with majority of US tellies?
In Europe they might ship with Full wire SCART, as I believe TV's without SCART's are so old as to be very rare in EU already.
But US, is component that common? Or S-Video?
rabidrabbit said:
VGA/Component is the only way to get HD signals in the absence of DVI/HDMI and i'm pretty sure all HDTVs in existance have component inputs so i wouldn't worry about that. Point is, the digital signals are just better. And the cables are just tidier.
Scart can't carry HD signals.
Europe will most likely get RGB scart in the box. 480i but still better than bloody composite.
That's what I'm saying. If the majority of people who buy Xbox360 don't have DVI equipped HDTVs, then it makes sense to just include the composite cables. It's better to have one port that works with any type of connection than to have a DVI port that doesn't work with the composite cable that's included in the box.
PC-Engine said:
Of course, the point is that we don't know if the single port will be compatible with everything from composite to HDMI. Sounds a bit far fetched to me but i could be wrong.
london-boy said:
Well of course we don't know, that's why I said it's better to NOT include the DVI port and instead include a proprietary Multi AV out port. For example GCN, Xbox, and PS2 don't have component connectors built-in because it adds to the cost of the console. Same idea with DVI and of course you can make a single port that works with both digital and analog out. DVI-I is exactly that.
How much more would it cost them to include it? For all we know it costs as much as that horrible huge green led at the front.
Yes, that's why it's better t have a Multi A/V port that supports composite, s-video, component, analog VGA and rgb-scart plus a dedicated connectors for HDMI
than a single A/V connector that possibly supports all of these, but requires you to buy expensive proprietary cable no matter what signal you'll use (beyond composite). There'll be no way you'd be able to use standard cables you might already own.
It's amazing haow you keep on twisting that a single proprietary multiconnector with more expensive cables is better for consumer than a more versatile combo of proprietary and cheaper standard connectors.
I'm pretty sure the cost for consumer if a hdmi or dvi connector was included would be much less than what the Microsoft "Advanced DVI HD era" cable will cost you.
But that's just you.
than a single A/V connector that possibly supports all of these, but requires you to buy expensive proprietary cable no matter what signal you'll use (beyond composite). There'll be no way you'd be able to use standard cables you might already own.
It's amazing haow you keep on twisting that a single proprietary multiconnector with more expensive cables is better for consumer than a more versatile combo of proprietary and cheaper standard connectors.
I'm pretty sure the cost for consumer if a hdmi or dvi connector was included would be much less than what the Microsoft "Advanced DVI HD era" cable will cost you.
But that's just you.
^ Great point rabid.
Oh, sorry then.
It just didn't come out very clear from your earlier posts, with the "expensive DVI cables" and such, which had little to do with adding manufacturer's costs.
Still, I rather argue for the consumer, than be a spokesperson for company profits and against what's good for the end user.
It just didn't come out very clear from your earlier posts, with the "expensive DVI cables" and such, which had little to do with adding manufacturer's costs.
Still, I rather argue for the consumer, than be a spokesperson for company profits and against what's good for the end user.
Talking from the producer's POV is needed to understand design decisions. A feature is either there to make them money, or not there to save them money!rabidrabbit said:
Similar threads
