Might be that, also the computer itself might be another reason. But who cares? Why doesn't the monitor just re-establish the last known good connection quickly?

But it could just look at all of the input sources at the same time. And anyway, these are solid state electronics, not hamsters and flywheels. Taking seconds to send "give me electrons" and for the other side to say "here are some electrons" is bonkers.

Being able to observe all inputs sources at the same time requires extra hardware(more utilisation of the FPGA resources), considering only one input is connected to the display at a time. So it's probable that the check is sequential.

"More" isn't a meaningful qualifier without a quantifier. I'm not convinced that it would take more than $0.01 worth of resource. I could even see doing it in a purely analog fashion with an extremely basic component like a mosfet. If a pin goes high because the computer responded to your request to send electrons, it sets the corresponding channel.

> So it's probable that the check is sequential.

It's a user unfriendly design for the process to be "send request, wait 5 seconds, send request on next channel, wait 5 seconds, send request on next channel, ..." when it could instead be sending requests across all channels rapidly and then that getting a response on a particular channel _activates_ that channel by analogue means.

I know you’re just guessing, but if that’s what happens, why don’t they just default to the last source used and start the cycling only if nothing is detected there?

I have auto-input select disabled since I only use my monitor with a dock. Still takes 15 seconds.

Why does it take 10-20s even if it is cycling through all the inputs though?