rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson) (09/28/87)
In article <> kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: >A final question to anyone who knows ... what are the differences (if any) >between the 1080 monitor, and the new 2002 monitor that my dealer was >unloading this morning? They are not the long persistence monitors [...] I asked Lauren Brown (of Commodore) that question on the phone the other day, and she said they're the same as the 1080, but with different connec- tors, for use with different cables. And, as the cable comes with the monitor anyway, it doesn't matter which one you get. -- Rick Lahrson ...tektronix!oresoft!rick Disclaimer: If I ever speak for anyone but me, I'll warn you in advance.
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (09/29/87)
In article <79@oresoft.UUCP> rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson) writes: > In article <> kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: > >A final question to anyone who knows ... what are the differences (if any) > >between the 1080 monitor, and the new 2002 monitor that my dealer was > >unloading this morning? They are not the long persistence monitors [...] > > I asked Lauren Brown (of Commodore) that question on the phone the other > day, and she said they're the same as the 1080, but with different connec- > tors, for use with different cables. And, as the cable comes with the > monitor anyway, it doesn't matter which one you get. Well, close... The 1080 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .39 dotpitch tube The 2002 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .42 dotpitch tube The 2080 is (so far) elusive long persistance monitor. The 2002 is intended to be an across the line monitor and is sold with either cables for the C64/128 family or the Amiga family. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: out to lunch... Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
kim@amdahl.UUCP (10/03/87)
In article <2425@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > In article <79@oresoft.UUCP> rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson) writes: > > > > I asked Lauren Brown (of Commodore) that question on the phone the other > > day, and she said they're the same as the 1080 ... > > Well, close... > > The 1080 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .39 dotpitch tube > The 2002 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .42 dotpitch tube ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gee, I'm glad I have a 1080 then! Seems like all the high-resolution monitors are going to *smaller* dot pitches, which improve the "crispness" of the image. I think .31 is pretty common these days, and I've seen specs for some that are about .28 So why in the world are you going to a larger dot pitch (can't be that much difference in $$$'s, can it)? /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,uunet,oliveb,cbosgd,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (10/14/87)
In article <15524@amdahl.amdahl.com> kim@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes: > In article <2425@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > > In article <79@oresoft.UUCP> rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson) writes: > > > > The 1080 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .39 dotpitch tube > > The 2002 is similar to a 1902, but with analog RGB and a .42 dotpitch tube > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Gee, I'm glad I have a 1080 then! > > Seems like all the high-resolution monitors are going to *smaller* dot > pitches, which improve the "crispness" of the image. I think .31 is > pretty common these days, and I've seen specs for some that are about .28 > > So why in the world are you going to a larger dot pitch (can't be that much > difference in $$$'s, can it)? The idea is to have one universal monitor for C64/C128/PC/A500/A2000 owners that would be competitivly priced, then have a "premium" (A2080) quality monitor availble for the more discerning users. The A2080 has been kind of slow in showing up to fill its role, but it is on the way. The picture tube is the independent variable in the monitor racket. Sure you can get .31 or .28 dot pitch, but your probably going to pay $200 or so more than you pay for a 1080 type monitor. If you have the extra money, one of the multi-sync monitors, with a nice dot pitch is probably an excellent investment. BTW, if you think .42 is wretched, go over to Radio Shack or Sears and check out what a .49 or .52 dot pitch looks like!!! -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: out to lunch... Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)