I beg to differ (in a friendly way, don't want to argue) I happened to have a high-voltage and powerfull device next to my computer few years ago. I was using vga cable then, and all cables (including power cables) were put together in a special plastic tube for cables to avoid spaghetti on the floor (it was not very clever to put high voltage power cable next to analog signal cables, I know, it wasn't a clever move). When turning that other thing on, I could see some strange effects on my monitor, but it still showed something and I could decipher the screen during that few seconds. When I switched to dvi later, it forced me to finally separate the power cables, as the dvi dropped the image altogether (screen was at best blinking or, more often, totally black for these few seconds). Maybe it was good after all (as I separated my cables properly and eliminated bigger interferences), but I wanted to make a point in analog-digital "war" that it's not always best to use digital. It's my personal experience and could be affected by crappy cables, etc., but I personally prefer to see something (even though it looks like it's 4am and someone's been drinking) when there are interferences than not seeing anything at all.

To add something to "digital side" too, on some devices the dvi/hdmi signal is displayed in a better way, too. That might be an issue of these devices (or shitty DAC/ADCs), but, well, if better ones would become more and more difficult to find on the market, dvi/hdmi would win with help of this little cheating.

And, I don't know anything about vga/dvi signals, but I imagine dvi output to take less space "on the board" and be less complicated electronics-wise (no DAC chip needed? but maybe some special additional encoding chip needed - as I said, I have no experience with these visual signals).

Just my 2 cents to this discussion

That's sad to hear Is VGA signal more probable then DVI one then?