ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (01/12/91)
In article <1991Jan11.174941.44244@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes: : >I am perilously close to committing a great deal of my own money in a >386/33 system with 64K cache (CPU). At work, I sit in front of a NEC : >1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always > non-interlaced? That is, is interlacing something that becomes : >Please feel free to repsond directly to me at FF76@UNTVM1 via bitnet >(i.e., at FF76@UNTVM1.BITNET) or at FF76@VAXB.ACS.UNT.EDU via internet. >I prfer the former e-mail address. If I have significant responses, I >will summarize. : Thanks for the offer to summarize, but kindly summarize to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware. comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d mainly discusses binary postings and programs available at ftp sites, and exchanges information on the availability and properties of these postings and programs. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan11.175216.44245@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes: |1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always | non-interlaced? That is, is interlacing something that becomes | necessary to keep costs down for the 1024 x 768 display monitors, | since the display density otherwise becomes too high? I used to think so but then I discovered at least one VGA card that runs a rather low frequency in 800x600x256 mode. Apparently there was a problem with getting enough bandwidth out of the DRAMs in that mode so they simply slowed down the screen refresh rate. This was a card that used megabit DRAMs which obviously have lower bandwidth out of the memory than cards that used (more of) smaller DRAMs. Anyway, it flickered like crazy! (I don't remember the exact frequency.) This doesn't answer your question directly since you were asking about monitors but the issue of displays is always a two part question with both the monitor and the graphics adaptor playing important roles. If you are just interested in the monitor, the answer is in general yes, almost all multisync monitors are capable of running non-interlaced below 1024x768. Of course, the original IBM monochrome ran a 50 Hz refresh but had a long persistence phosphor. |4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors other than the | Sony 1304 and the Seiko 1450? Where are they available and at what | kind of bargains? You could get the NEC 4D. Of course, that's even more expensive. One could question the value of 1024x768 on a 14 inch screen. -- militia: 1.a. A citizen army, as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. b. The armed citzenry, as distinct from the regular army.
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan11.174941.44244@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes: >2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical at higher > resolutions (1024 x 768, 800 x 760, etc) and less critical at lower > resolutions (640 x 480, etc.)? From what I've seen, non-interlaced looks worse at lower resolutions rather than high. 1024x768 interlaced seems to have much less flicker than 800x600 or 512x512 interlaced, on the systems I've looked at. But non-interlaced looks better. If you're going to be using 800x600 or lower resolution, you probably want non-interlaced. Personally, I think 1024x768 is not too useful on a 14" monitor -- especially if you've got eye problems, as you say you do. You end up with *very* tiny icons/fonts/etc. And the step up to a 16" monitor is going to be about $500 more. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (01/16/91)
ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes: >To my dismay, I found out that non-interlaced monitors are about $300- >$400 more expensive than interlaced SVGA monitors. In fact, I could only >locate two brands - a SONY and a Seiko. The price differential is not necessarily that great. Best street price for Seiko's 1440 interlaced is ~$500, while the non-interlaced 1450 runs about ~$650-675. Sony's 1304 is also in the latter range, but I believe the Seiko has the better warranty.