[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KVM switch: DVI-D, DVI-I or vga?



On Sat, 23 May 2015 11:18:16 -0700
David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:

> On 05/23/2015 07:30 AM, German wrote:
> > I am shopping locally here for a good KVM switch. For now, I am not
> > even sure what type should I get. What are advantages to have DVI
> > instead of VGA interface? Are there any justifications in price? VGA
> > KVM is about $20, where is DVI is $100. If money is no object, DVI
> > KVM is better than VGA? Thanks for all info you can share.
> 
> I run and work on many different makes and models of PC-compatible 
> computers.  VGA and PS/2 are the lowest-common-denominator interfaces
> -- especially for servers, retail point of sale, and business
> desktops. So, I have an 8-port KVM with VGA and PS/2 connectors, and
> a monitor, keyboard, and mouse to match.  I use various PS/2-to-USB,
> DVI-I-to-VGA, DisplayPort-to-VGA, etc., adapters at the computer end
> of the KVM cables.  I don't use USB or microphones through the KVM.
> I use a passive line-level mixer for speakers.
> 
> 
> Determining compatibility before making a purchase is tough.
> Hardware tends to be identified by product manufacturer name and
> model number, while software (device drivers) tends to be identified
> by chip manufacturer name and part number.  After searching and
> reading whatever you can, you will need to buy a KVM, plug it in, and
> find out for yourself.  Make sure you buy the KVM through a vendor
> that will allow you to use it for a week or two, and return it if you
> don't like it.  I went through several KVM's before finding one
> (IOGEAR GCS78) that worked reliably with Windows and Linux, and put
> the hotkeys where they didn't interfere with other applications
> (notably games).
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 

Thanks for your thoughts, David. You have mentioned adapters. So it
makes sense to use for instance vga-to-dvi adapter? How about the
quality of this connection? Is this worth it?


Reply to: