ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (04/16/91)
Has anyone tried these monitors? How do they rate compared to a similar Sony, Seiko or Nec 14" 1024x768 non-interlaced monitors? They go for $389 which sounds like a real bargain. The ad states that they have a "wide frequency range - 15-48 KHz" and "Wide bandwidth 40 MHz". What do these mean? Is the monitor "fast" enough for good, sharp, flicker-free operation at 1024x768x256 non-interlaced? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (04/16/91)
Just to throw in my two-cents worth, I bought a Loop (non interlaced one) and wasn't pleased with its quality. It was so dull that I asked for a replacement, which I received. The replacement was just the same. I returned it and bought an interlaced Samsung Syncmaster 3, which is spectacular. It cost about 40 dollars more, and I didnb't miss the NI (which I never used). And the BLACK black and WHITE white, along with the fine dot pitch and vibrant colors, made it all worthwhile. However, I have had good luck with the Loop 1MB Tseng based video card. Brian PS It might be trident based. Can't remember.
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (04/16/91)
It's a shame you couldn't get the Goldstar or the Samsung big monitors, since they seem to be a good deal. I know that the Goldstar monitors that I have seen have been pretty inferior, and the Samsung Synmaster line is fairly nice (the Samsung Synmaster 4 is the 17" monitor). However, earlier Samsungs and their clones (Imtec, e.g.) aren't very nice. However, they were the EGA monitors (1431/1314). The Swan looked like a good deal, but I haven't had the guts to get it, and may be conservative and just go with a NEC 4D when the time arises. And the company that I believe that you are referring to is Compeq USA. They do have good pricing, and the name is rather misleading, however they told me they were the only US distributor for Loop, and since a lot of manufacturers of clones use Loop monitors (they OEM them...Blue Chip uses Loop monitors, for e.g.) they can't be all bad. Brian
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (04/16/91)
From article <28043@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, by jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook): > > Just to throw in my two-cents worth, I bought a Loop (non interlaced one) > and wasn't pleased with its quality. It was so dull that I asked for a > replacement, which I received. The replacement was just the same. I > returned it and bought an interlaced Samsung Syncmaster 3, which is > spectacular. It cost about 40 dollars more, and I didnb't miss the NI > (which I never used). And the BLACK black and WHITE white, along with the > fine dot pitch and vibrant colors, made it all worthwhile. > > However, I have had good luck with the Loop 1MB Tseng based video card. I was a bit suspecious about Loop since it was heavily advertized in Computer Shoppers by one company whose name I do not care to mention. I recently bought the Swan VGA15 monitor (using a TSENG4000 card 1024x768x256 noninterlaced), and is quite satisfied. Here are the characteristics: - 1024x768 noninterlaced - 15" (slightly better than 14" when viewing 1024x768) - very close to "flatscreen" (there is almost no convax detectable except slight concave) - the pixels in 1024x768x256 Windows 3.0 NI is solidly anchored to the screen, no motion nor flicker - $599 - 30-day money-back gurrantee when bought from Swan Computers I tried to get Samsung 17" noninterlaced (advertised at around $900) but nobody seems to have stock. I also tried to get the Goldstar 16" interlaced too but again nobody has stock. Vaporware??? My office has the Daewood 14" interlaced 1024x768 from HDI (I think it was $349) and the difference between interlaced and noninterlaced is pretty far apart at 1024x768x256. The interlaced is NOT worth the saving of $100 or $200, (unless you are 100% sure that 99% of the time the monitor will be in text mode)!
fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr15.174552.15193@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) writes: >Has anyone tried these monitors? How do they rate compared >to a similar Sony, Seiko or Nec 14" 1024x768 non-interlaced >monitors? They go for $389 which sounds like a real bargain. NEC 14" monitor never can do a decent 1024x728. The 3D model you were talking above has such a pitiful narrow horizontal sync frequency range it's not good for 1024x728 at all. 3D should be treated as a 800x600 non-interlaced and non-flicker monitor. Yes, you can use the interlaced mode of it, but personally I never like to run it in that mode. >The ad states that they have a "wide frequency range - 15-48 >KHz" and "Wide bandwidth 40 MHz". What do these mean? Is the >monitor "fast" enough for good, sharp, flicker-free operation >at 1024x768x256 non-interlaced? > The ad is bragging! That's it. 15 ~ 48Khz and they dare to call it wide? Shame on them! With 48Khz, you hardly can do a 58Hz refresh rate 1024x728 non-interlaced display, and most people can sense flickering even at 60Hz! Remember our floresent light is "refreshed" at 60Hz and most of us can sense the flickering and so we use them in clusters? Don't believe this ad. I recently had a chance to try out a brand new TVM SuperSync 5A with spec just like what you saw, I was disgusted! SuperSync 5A has a .28 mm dot pitch but that alone could never make up it's fundamental shortcoming -> narrow horizontal sync frequency range with 48Khz as upper limit. It' almost flat screen didn't help much either. Likewise, OptiQuest 2000 has a spec similar to yours and priced not much more, but unfortunately I have to tell you if you want to use 800x600 with this bunch, fine. 1024x768? .......Hmmmm. If you really want 1024x728, shop carefully and spend around $850~920, get a 16" monitor with horizontal sync frequency upper limit as high as or higer than 60Khz, then you will be in good shape. If your software driver is written competently so that a proper driving frequency of your vedio board is employed, you maybe able to get 70Hz refresh rate for your 1024x728, non-interlaced of course. 70Hz is nice, as most workstations, like SUN, HP, DEC use for their monitors screen update (refresh) rate. At this frequency, you can watch the monitor for a long time (several hours) without suffer eye strain. Images are very steady at this or higher refresh rate. Except IBM, it's latest RS6000 is another shame of the BIG BLUE. Using a blazingly fast TI34010 board but screwed up the very fine Trinitron tube with a 54Hz refresh rate (estimated) it's pain to watch the display indeed. Even when I do system adminstration, I remote login our RS6000s from a Sun Sparc 1+ just to avoid to see that stupid IBM implementation. Remember, non-interlaceness alone will do you not a trace of good if it's updated (or refreshed) at low frequency which to me, is any frequency below 65Hz. But on the other hand, if a interlaced display is updated at high enough refresh rate, let's say 90Hz, it's FAR FAR FAR better than a non- interlaced one updated at say 50Hz. I know so, because my X server allows me to configure at all kinds of refresh rate/resolution combos. Remember also, price is LESS IMPORTANT THAN your invaluable eyssight! OK, in conclusion, don't believe the ad! Hope the info helps. Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford Unversity fangchin@leland.stanford.edu ps. any one interested in more details of this vedio basics is encouraged to read Thomas Roell's X386 X11R4 server CONFIG and release-notes. Even you use just MS/DOS (sigh...) you can learn a lot from the docs.
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (04/17/91)
From article <28046@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, by jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook): > It's a shame you couldn't get the Goldstar or the Samsung big monitors, > since they seem to be a good deal. I know that the Goldstar monitors that > I have seen have been pretty inferior, Well, if you have a source of Goldstar monitor (who does not say during order time that they are out of stock), I am sure many of us could use it. Goldstar was my first choice, except I called around for 2 hours during that morning and NOBODY has stock. I even called the Goldstar company, but they gave me the runaround. Even if you have a Samsung 17" source, it would also be useful. Against nobody carries it the day I decided to order. I had to "settled" for Swan VGA15, which turns out to be a better deal in some respect as the Goldstar and the Samsung (I especially like the flatscreen effect of Swan VGA15, the Goldstar and Samsung does not mention anything about flatscreen). I had since tried to find out who Swan OEMed the VGA15 from but to no avail. My guess is that it is a new design hence probably a better design (technology-wise) than Goldstar and Samsung (whose 16" and 17" has been around for a while). Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, somebody who email me yesterday was confused about using noninterlaced program on interlaced monitor. You cannot do that. I am sorry I could not reply email to him because I cannot comprehen the return email address. In my comparison, I was comparing 1024x768x256 interlaced on a Daewood (14" interlaced $349 from HDI) to 1024x768x256 noninterlaced on my Swan VGA15.
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (04/17/91)
From article <1991Apr16.063825.19501@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang): > NEC 14" monitor never can do a decent 1024x728. The 3D model you were talking > above has such a pitiful narrow horizontal sync frequency range it's not good > for 1024x728 at all. 3D should be treated as a 800x600 non-interlaced and > non-flicker monitor. > > Yes, you can use the interlaced mode of it, but personally I never like to > run it in that mode. What do you mean? Isn't 3D a 1024x768 interlaced monitor? Hence you have to run it at interlaced during 1024x768 regardless of what you WISH to do? >>The ad states that they have a "wide frequency range - 15-48 >>KHz" and "Wide bandwidth 40 MHz". What do these mean? Is the >>monitor "fast" enough for good, sharp, flicker-free operation >>at 1024x768x256 non-interlaced? >> > The ad is bragging! That's it. 15 ~ 48Khz and they dare to call it wide? > Shame on them! With 48Khz, you hardly can do a 58Hz refresh rate 1024x728 > non-interlaced display, and most people can sense flickering even at 60Hz! What do you mean most people? My monitor runs at 1024x768 noninterlaced at 48KHz and all my friends could not find any "flicker" whatsoever. The pixels are as solidly ANCHORED to the screen as in the standard 640x480x16. > Remember our floresent light is "refreshed" at 60Hz and most of us can sense > the flickering and so we use them in clusters? Don't believe this ad. > > I recently had a chance to try out a brand new TVM SuperSync 5A with spec > just like what you saw, I was disgusted! SuperSync 5A has a .28 mm dot pitch > but that alone could never make up it's fundamental shortcoming -> narrow > horizontal sync frequency range with 48Khz as upper limit. It' almost flat > screen didn't help much either. My Swan VGA15 is a TVM SuperSync 5A and it is spectacular!!! I have worked for months 10 hours a day on Sun Sparc 1+ (17" flatscreen and 19") and Dec 3100's (19" screens) and SuperSync 5A is just as good as their displays. And what do you mean by "It' almost flat screen didn't help much either." Do you mean that its flatness is not as good as those of the Zenith 1492 (640x480 for $600) and similar monitors or you personally do not know how to appreciate flatscreen? I find the flatscreen on the VGA15 (SuperSync 5A) tremendously helpful and make a great difference. Now that I am "pampered" by its flatscreen, I find the standard "curve" screen somewhat unacceptable. > Likewise, OptiQuest 2000 has a spec similar to yours and priced not much > more, but unfortunately I have to tell you if you want to use 800x600 with > this bunch, fine. 1024x768? .......Hmmmm. Please keep to the subject. We are talking about 1024x768 noninterlaced. If you have something to sell that is less than that, most of us are not interested! > > If you really want 1024x728, shop carefully and spend around $850~920, get > a 16" monitor with horizontal sync frequency upper limit as high as or higer > than 60Khz, then you will be in good shape. If your software driver is > written competently so that a proper driving frequency of your vedio board > is employed, you maybe able to get 70Hz refresh rate for your 1024x728, > non-interlaced of course. Talk is cheap. Talk that is invalid is even cheaper. I shopped around for two months "quite intensively" and another two prior to that with 16" to 17" in mind and $900 to spare. When it come time to spend, NOBODY (I called nearly all the shops that supposedly sells them) has stock of the 17" Samsung 4 1024x768 noninterlaced or the Goldstar 16". What other 16" monitors are you talking about? The ones you have to connect your own separate R, G, and B connectors? I don't think there are too many people who would like to mess with that. Or are you talking about those "good" ones attached to Sun workstations? Can we buy them at about $900 (for 16" that is)? I have not seen any ads and the shop people I talked to does not know much about them. And what about cards? The most popular Super VGA cards I come across seems to the those based on the ET4000 chipset with 1024x768 noninterlaced at 48KHz. Yes, we have that Sigma "thing" that runs at 70 or 72KHz, but I saw a recent comparison test for more than 10 Super VGA and Sigma ranked near last! (And it is relatively expansive too) > 70Hz is nice, as most workstations, like SUN, HP, DEC use for their monitors > screen update (refresh) rate. At this frequency, you can watch the monitor > for a long time (several hours) without suffer eye strain. Images are very > steady at this or higher refresh rate. Oh, come on. I had worked on a Sun Sparc 1+ for a few months for about 8 to 10 hours a day and many times I came home after work and went straight to bed (as opposed to my usual additional 3 to 4 hours of TV). That's how tire my eyes were watching those "nice" workstations at "70Hz". In fact, I find watching my Swan VGA15 is less tiring than the Sun workstation. My guess is that screen size has something to do with it. > Except IBM, it's latest RS6000 is another shame of the BIG BLUE. Using a > blazingly fast TI34010 board but screwed up the very fine Trinitron tube > with a 54Hz refresh rate (estimated) it's pain to watch the display indeed. > Even when I do system adminstration, I remote login our RS6000s from > a Sun Sparc 1+ just to avoid to see that stupid IBM implementation. > > Remember, non-interlaceness alone will do you not a trace of good if it's > updated (or refreshed) at low frequency which to me, is any frequency below > 65Hz. But on the other hand, if a interlaced display is updated at high > enough refresh rate, let's say 90Hz, it's FAR FAR FAR better than a non- > interlaced one updated at say 50Hz. I know so, because my X server allows > me to configure at all kinds of refresh rate/resolution combos. > > Remember also, price is LESS IMPORTANT THAN your invaluable eyssight! In general, I agree. Pay a little bit more for a SuperSync 5A (Swan VGA15, they are both the very same monitor) as opposed to those cheap $350 1024x768 interlaced. Or get a 17" Samsung noninterlaced 1024x768 for $900 if you can find a shop with stock. But the last author would have to tell us where to find a "70KHz noninterlaced 1024x768 16" for $900" and a 1meg VGA card that supports the same frequency at close to $200 before we can do anything. His suggestion of shopping around has not worked for me and you might not want to waste the same amount of time as I did. $
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/18/91)
fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) writes: >NEC 14" monitor never can do a decent 1024x728. The 3D model you were talking >above has such a pitiful narrow horizontal sync frequency range it's not good The thing about the 3D is that its lowest HSF is relatively low, it goes from around 14 KHz to 38 KHz. That's not bad, but it's not good either. >>The ad states that they have a "wide frequency range - 15-48 >>KHz" and "Wide bandwidth 40 MHz". What do these mean? Is the >>monitor "fast" enough for good, sharp, flicker-free operation >>at 1024x768x256 non-interlaced? >> >The ad is bragging! That's it. 15 ~ 48Khz and they dare to call it wide? Well, it is. I don't know of many products that go down that low which go up any higher. You may not want to go down that low (I certainly don't!) but it's still an exceptional range. >I recently had a chance to try out a brand new TVM SuperSync 5A with spec >just like what you saw, I was disgusted! SuperSync 5A has a .28 mm dot pitch >but that alone could never make up it's fundamental shortcoming -> narrow >horizontal sync frequency range with 48Khz as upper limit. It' almost flat Let's not be so negative. Even the Sony 1304, which hardly anyone would describe as lacking, only goes up to 50 KHz. This is still a PC newsgroup, nothing wrong with high end, but you are way out there at the 99.99% level. -- The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/18/91)
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >Talk is cheap. Talk that is invalid is even cheaper. I shopped around >for two months "quite intensively" and another two prior to that with >16" to 17" in mind and $900 to spare. When it come time to spend, I have to admit I haven't seen these cheap super high performance (60 KHz is super high performance) 16 inch monitors for that kind of price either, but I haven't looked in the past few months. >And what about cards? The most popular Super VGA cards I come across >seems to the those based on the ET4000 chipset with 1024x768 noninterlaced >at 48KHz. Yes, we have that Sigma "thing" that runs at 70 or 72KHz, but The Sigma Legend only does 72 Hz vertical at lower resolutions. At the highest resolution, 1024x768, it drops down to 60 Hz too. -- The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr17.164509.19165@d.cs.okstate.edu> ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >> >What do you mean? Isn't 3D a 1024x768 interlaced monitor? Hence you have >to run it at interlaced during 1024x768 regardless of what you WISH to do? Doing 1024x728 interlaced with flickering is not decent. Did I use the word decent in any wrong manner? I used to work with a large Distributor a lot in South El Monte in LA area and I guess I have seen quite a lot 3Ds. And that's the reason why I still have chances to play with brand new products (dealer demos) quite often. I won't say things that just guess work. >> The ad is bragging! That's it. 15 ~ 48Khz and they dare to call it wide? >> Shame on them! With 48Khz, you hardly can do a 58Hz refresh rate 1024x728 >> non-interlaced display, and most people can sense flickering even at 60Hz! > >What do you mean most people? My monitor runs at 1024x768 noninterlaced >at 48KHz and all my friends could not find any "flicker" whatsoever. >The pixels are as solidly ANCHORED to the screen as in the standard 640x480x16. Try open a snow white background, and black background, and then turn away your head, now peek your monitor sideways. If you don't sense flicker, then the thing is steady enough. This is a very easy test. If you pardon me, I consider above 65Hz refresh rate is necessary not to show traces of flickering. I seriously doubt that using 48Khz horizontal sync rate one can achieve a high enough refresh rate like 65Hz or above. See below for more precise dis- cussion. I have tested 68Hz, 65Hz, 63Hz, and 60Hz on my monitor. I have to say, the last two always bother me. All these numbers are refresh rates using the highest horz sync of a Multisync II, 35Khz. And the resolutions are the following: 640x480 704x528 752x564 832x600 Note, I use X, so I can design my own res and refresh rate within certain limits. If you use MSDOS, unless you do programming youself, you don't have such freedom I am afraid. I also tried a brand new IDEK 17" monitor recently. But I don't have my numbers handy at this moment. IDEK as you recall, won PC Mag Editor's Choice but I strongly disagree with PC Mag. It's a nice monitor but suffers a narrow horizontal sync range, the highest rate it can do is 50Khz. For a 17" FLAT SCREEN (see?) monitor, it's a shame! IDEK should have made the circuits more capable like doint 70Khz or so. Yes, I know for certain background/foreground constrast, you can get by with even 45Hz refresh rate. In addition, some people have higher tolerance but basically I believe high refresh rate is necessary. This is not for theoretical reasons. It's a practical need. > > >My Swan VGA15 is a TVM SuperSync 5A and it is spectacular!!! I have worked Even compared with Sun's Trinitron tube monitor, you still consider TVM spectacular? I would say you really love TVM. (just joking) I am doing SA at my school's computer center, I am afraid that I am already biased towards Sun. I think SUN's Trinitons are the best implementation. To anti-glare, TVM puts net like thing on montors, (could be a Hitachi tube) and that makes the optical illusion of grainly look. I don't like that. Trinitron tubes do not suffer such (if I may call it shortcoming?) >for months 10 hours a day on Sun Sparc 1+ (17" flatscreen and 19") and >Dec 3100's (19" screens) and SuperSync 5A is just as good as their >displays. And what do you mean by "It' almost flat screen >didn't help much either." Do you mean that its flatness is not as good see below for explaination >as those of the Zenith 1492 (640x480 for $600) and similar monitors or >you personally do not know how to appreciate flatscreen? I find the >flatscreen on the VGA15 (SuperSync 5A) tremendously helpful and make a >great difference. Now that I am "pampered" by its flatscreen, I find >the standard "curve" screen somewhat unacceptable. > Again, try the white/black constrast I suggest above and then we talk. When I said the flat screen didn't help much either, I meant for this particular combination. Heck, I like flat screen monitors as much as you, don't get me wrong. Maybe I should have made my wording clearer. >> Likewise, OptiQuest 2000 has a spec similar to yours and priced not much >> more, but unfortunately I have to tell you if you want to use 800x600 with >> this bunch, fine. 1024x768? .......Hmmmm. > >Please keep to the subject. We are talking about 1024x768 noninterlaced. >If you have something to sell that is less than that, most of us are >not interested! My point is to remind people the importance of non-flicer, which can only be achieve by high screen refresh rate. Just NON-INTERLACENESS WON'T DO! 1024x728, so what if it's flickering? You might as well drop back to 800x600 to save your eyes. Just because a monitor is capable of doing 1024x728 or higher does not mean it can do it right (non-flickering and non interlaced) >> If you really want 1024x728, shop carefully and spend around $850~920, get >> a 16" monitor with horizontal sync frequency upper limit as high as or higer >> than 60Khz, then you will be in good shape. If your software driver is >> written competently so that a proper driving frequency of your vedio board >> is employed, you maybe able to get 70Hz refresh rate for your 1024x728, >> non-interlaced of course. > >Talk is cheap. Talk that is invalid is even cheaper. I shopped around >for two months "quite intensively" and another two prior to that with >16" to 17" in mind and $900 to spare. When it come time to spend, >NOBODY (I called nearly all the shops that supposedly sells them) >has stock of the 17" Samsung 4 1024x768 noninterlaced or the >Goldstar 16". What other 16" monitors are you talking about? >The ones you have to connect your own separate R, G, and B connectors? >I don't think there are too many people who would like to mess with that. >Or are you talking about those "good" ones attached to Sun workstations? >Can we buy them at about $900 (for 16" that is)? I have not seen any ads >and the shop people I talked to does not know much about them. > Check with Softsel! When they had a promotion sale two months ago, NEC 4D was priced at $832. I still have the sheet in my file. And I have seen in some back issues of PC Mag Nano 9070s priced around $950 or so. A pen pal of mine glenn@cs.utexas.edu bought his NEC 4D in 900s too. So am I telling you something achieveable? And my friend bought it several months ago. Have you really shopped? >And what about cards? The most popular Super VGA cards I come across >seems to the those based on the ET4000 chipset with 1024x768 noninterlaced >at 48KHz. Yes, we have that Sigma "thing" that runs at 70 or 72KHz, but >I saw a recent comparison test for more than 10 Super VGA and Sigma ranked >near last! (And it is relatively expansive too) SWAN SVGA costs you $199 + $5 shipping. Even it 80ns DRAM, my pen pal is able to achieve 60Hz refresh rate for his 1024x728 on his 4D. Of course both of us use X and I guess you are using MS/DOS. So such comparision is not fair to you. Remember NEC 4D is a more capable monitor than your TVM. >> 70Hz is nice, as most workstations, like SUN, HP, DEC use for their monitors >> screen update (refresh) rate. At this frequency, you can watch the monitor >> for a long time (several hours) without suffer eye strain. Images are very >> steady at this or higher refresh rate. > >Oh, come on. I had worked on a Sun Sparc 1+ for a few months for >about 8 to 10 hours a day and many times I came home after work and >went straight to bed (as opposed to my usual additional 3 to 4 hours >of TV). That's how tire my eyes were watching those "nice" workstations In day time, I do system adminstration, and I still have to work on my thesis at night. Comon, do some exercise. Don't go to bed right away! (just kidding) >at "70Hz". In fact, I find watching my Swan VGA15 is less tiring than >the Sun workstation. My guess is that screen size has something to do >with it. > I said (a few hours) and now you are talking about 8 to 10 hours. Maybe your definition of few is different from mine. I have to make a correction to myself. DECstation's montior is also refreshed at fairly low rate like 58 Hz or so. Sun's Trinitron tube is still the best implementation that I have seen so far. In a hurry, I elated it's status to where it doesn't deserve >> Except IBM, it's latest RS6000 is another shame of the BIG BLUE. Using a >> blazingly fast TI34010 board but screwed up the very fine Trinitron tube >> with a 54Hz refresh rate (estimated) it's pain to watch the display indeed. >> Even when I do system adminstration, I remote login our RS6000s from >> a Sun Sparc 1+ just to avoid to see that stupid IBM implementation. >> >> Remember, non-interlaceness alone will do you not a trace of good if it's >> updated (or refreshed) at low frequency which to me, is any frequency below >> 65Hz. But on the other hand, if a interlaced display is updated at high >> enough refresh rate, let's say 90Hz, it's FAR FAR FAR better than a non- >> interlaced one updated at say 50Hz. I know so, because my X server allows >> me to configure at all kinds of refresh rate/resolution combos. >> >> Remember also, price is LESS IMPORTANT THAN your invaluable eyssight! > >In general, I agree. Pay a little bit more for a SuperSync 5A (Swan VGA15, >they are both the very same monitor) as opposed to those cheap >$350 1024x768 interlaced. Or get a 17" Samsung noninterlaced 1024x768 >for $900 if you can find a shop with stock. But the last author >would have to tell us where to find a "70KHz noninterlaced 1024x768 16" for >$900" and a 1meg VGA card that supports the same frequency at close >to $200 before we can do anything. His suggestion of shopping around >has not worked for me and you might not want to waste the same amount >of time as I did. You finally agree with my point. But your earlier comments didn't sound too agreeable. Please note my point and see if it is good-intentional. I can give you the entire formula of calculating refresh rate based on your monitor spec and your SVGA board crystal driving frequencies. Most, if not all MSDOS drivers don't take advantage of the full potential of your hardware combos. This is sad but true. Please consider the technical side of this discussion, only if you can mathematically prove to me that you can achieve X refresh rate using Y montiro plus Z SVGA board, then you can flame me. All my numbers are based on my exact calculations. To make my post short, I didn't include them. The entire vedio timing stuff that I wrote for a PD X server amounts eight pages, if you want to read it, I can email to you. But please don't propergate the misconception of non-interlaceness anymore. It is important and necessary, but only coupled with high refresh rate and perhaps fine dot pitch, the entire image quality can become good. Not otherwise. No harsh feeling. Nice discussion anyway. Happy computing. Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu
fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr18.015859.19342@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >>Talk is cheap. Talk that is invalid is even cheaper. I shopped around ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This sounds like a flame to a good intention poster, not too fair to me. >>for two months "quite intensively" and another two prior to that with >>16" to 17" in mind and $900 to spare. When it come time to spend, > >I have to admit I haven't seen these cheap super high performance >(60 KHz is super high performance) 16 inch monitors for that kind >of price either, but I haven't looked in the past few months. > FYI, a former colleague of mine at Rockwell International Corp just bought an IDEK 17" monitor from a local retail shop in Canoga Park, LA, for $1100 Note, he didn't even go with mail order outlets. Anyone who claims that he/ she has shopped a lot should watch out the possibility that you can always miss bargains. I have, many times. And I consider myself an insider already. Like FORD always says, have you shopped carefully lately? Cheers. Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (04/20/91)
TIME OUT! This discussion has been throwing around the phrase "scan rate" a wee bit too much. I think we need to start clarifying "horizontal" and "vertical" since I, for one, am becoming confused. Sure, that new Sigma card does 72hZ. But isn't that VSR (vertical scan rate)? And doesn't that determine flickeriness? A monitor that does 15-48 is pretty good from what I here. But that is HSR! *NOT* VSR! How can a monitor that does 48kHz work with a 72kHz card? It WON'T. Why? Because they are too different ratings! Brian PS I'm STILL confused! :-)
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (04/20/91)
From article <1991Apr19.185311.6972@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang): > Note, I use X, so I can design my own res and refresh rate within certain > limits. If you use MSDOS, unless you do programming youself, you don't have > such freedom I am afraid. That is the problem here. Most of us in this section uses MS/DOS and MS/DOS only. You assumed that we uses X. If fact, I think most of use does not know what "X" you are talking about. X-windows? Unix? Special "DOS"? What? Most of us do not (cannot) write our own driver. You assumed we can. Now everything is out in the open... stop insulting our computer/monitor paid for by our hard-earn blood/sweat money because these are the "best" at our price-range. We uses only MS/DOS or PC/DOS and standard MS/DOS programs and cannot afford to pay someone else to write driver to refresh the monitor at 60KHz or whatever. At 48KHz, it is the "best" we can get to (using standard programs). And also stop misleading the other users. Many of them likewise cannot afford special 60KHz drivers for standard programs. You are very good at designing 60KHz drivers, that's good. We probably need your help sooner or later. But now we just want to get a monitor to display decent (noninterlaced) 1024x768 at an affordable price. Is that so bad? p.s. I checked around for 4D's at that time and the lowest I find is nearly $1100. I checked with at least 5 well-established discount mail-order shops and several smaller ones. It might be easier for you (and your friends) living in civilization to just run down to the shops and check it out, but I live in the middle of nowhere which makes it harder.
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (04/20/91)
From article <1991Apr19.190606.8873@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang): > In article <1991Apr18.015859.19342@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >>ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >>>Talk is cheap. Talk that is invalid is even cheaper. I shopped around > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This sounds like a flame to a good intention poster, not too fair to me. You asked for it. First you *bashed* my monitor (TVM, remember?). I am still paying for it via my credit card account. Then you kept suggesting that we get 60KHz monitor when we have NO USE for it since the drivers that comes with our standard MS/DOS programs cannot operate at that level. >>>for two months "quite intensively" and another two prior to that with >>>16" to 17" in mind and $900 to spare. When it come time to spend, >> >>I have to admit I haven't seen these cheap super high performance >>(60 KHz is super high performance) 16 inch monitors for that kind >>of price either, but I haven't looked in the past few months. >> > FYI, a former colleague of mine at Rockwell International Corp just bought > an IDEK 17" monitor from a local retail shop in Canoga Park, LA, for $1100 > > Note, he didn't even go with mail order outlets. Anyone who claims that he/ > she has shopped a lot should watch out the possibility that you can always > miss bargains. I have, many times. And I consider myself an insider already. Again. You and your friend live in civilization. Some of us don't. You are insider, you live in city, you know how to write your own driver. We don't, we can't, and we wouldn't. > Like FORD always says, have you shopped carefully lately? Stop insulting our enthusiasm. "Poor" graduate students like us have more time than money. So far, you are the only one (other than your friends YOU SAID got the deals) to find these deals. I have communicated via email with at least 5 other readers of this net and all of them cannot find the deals you described.
fangchin@elaine54.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (04/20/91)
In article <28109@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >TIME OUT! > >This discussion has been throwing around the phrase "scan rate" a wee bit >too much. I think we need to start clarifying "horizontal" and "vertical" >since I, for one, am becoming confused. > >Sure, that new Sigma card does 72hZ. But isn't that VSR (vertical scan >rate)? And doesn't that determine flickeriness? A monitor that does 15-48 >is pretty good from what I here. But that is HSR! *NOT* VSR! How can a >monitor that does 48kHz work with a 72kHz card? It WON'T. Why? Because >they are too different ratings! > >Brian > >PS I'm STILL confused! :-) I will just mention a few definitions here: DEFINITION: SCREEN REFRESH RATE = driving clock rate (eg 40Mhz) divided by the product of horizontal frame length and vertical frame length DEFINITION: A horiz frame length is the number of driving clock tics needed for an electron beam to scan the monitor from left to right and back to left. DEFINITION; A vertical frame length is the number of driving clock tics needed for an electron beam to scan the monitor from bottom to top and back to bottom. DEFINITION: horz frame length = driving clock rate (eg 40Mhz) divided by the employed monitor's horizontal sync frequency (eg 60Khz) If you use the max sync rate, you get minimum frame length which is MUST for high refresh rate and thus non-flickering DEFINITION: resolution can be regarded as the portion of frame lengths used for creating viewable image to your eyes. Another way is to say how many pixel (picture elements) on the screen. But people in the know should be able to tell basically I am talking the same thing from different point of views Vertical fame length is often derived using some rules of thumb and I perfer not to elaborate it here. Maybe in a future posting, I will give a more complete explainations to the whole mess. I don't care non-interlaceness. It's a consequence of my derivation. As an example, if you have 1024x728 res. Your horizontal frame length is most likely like 1320 or higher, your vertical frame length is like 820 or so. Therefore, if you use 60Mhz as driving frequency, your screen refresh rate ought to be: 60Mhz/(1320x820)=55.4Hz AND THIS IS POOR!!! You will see flickering at this frequency for sure and that' why I always question people who claim that they can achieve non-flicker 1024x728 using JUST 48Khz horz. Because low horizontal sync means for a given clock, longer frame length. Using the definition of refresh rate that means at this driving clock, you get lower refresh rate and thus flicker! Wisely matched driving clock and monitor sync frequencies is MUST for good quality image. Note, I was talking non-interlace mode above. So now you see, non-interlace ness means nothing without high screen refresh rate. I am going to edit my vedio timing introduction for a PD X server to make it more understandable to MS/DOS or even Mac users as well. As it is now, it has more than eight pages. I want to cut it down to four before I post it. You are not the only one confused. Because I have seen so many misconceptions floating around in this group. And sadly sometimes I even see such from popular mags like PC Mags. Worst, even from Vedio boards' manuals and Monitor makers' manuals. I think it's time to do a once for all post just to get rid of all of such wrong concepts. I started posting only two weeks ago because I couldn't hold myself quiet anymore seeing so many wrong things confusing people. Meanwhile, just remember you need to know four frequencies for your vedio subsystem (including vedio adapter and your monitor) in order of importance: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. your monitor's maximum horizontal sync rate (perferably high like 60Khz) 2. your vedio board's available driving frequencies (25Mhz, 28Mhz, 32Mhz, 36Mhz, 40Mhz, 45Mhz, 56Mhz, 62Mhz, and 65Mhz. A few good ones even offer driving frequencies higher than 70Mhz, but then you pay $$$ for them. An example is Everex VRAM ViewPoint ET4000 SVGA) Different driving frequencies are for different resolutions. Note, some el cheapo VGA boards may not have all these driving frequencies available. Mostly the higher ones. In that case, you are hosed when you want to run hi-res. 3. your monitor vertical sync rate (greater than 70Hz is highly desirable) 4. your monitor's vedio bandwidth (important to image quality, but most of the time you don't need to worry about this. Most monitors vedio band- width ratings are over kill) To elaborate how they related to each other, I need more than a few paragraphs to make it understandable to high school students. (I am not kidding, I think the basics of vedio timing is so simple that high school kids should under- stand them without much difficulty) Also remember one thing, if you see flicker, don't blame your hardwares first. Most of the time it's poorly written drivers that are culprits. Programmers of these drivers, for marketing/ecomonic reasons, don't not write them smart enough to take advantage your hardware's true potential. This is particularly true in MS/DOS arena. I suffered my share mightly already. Hope your confusion is partially gone by now. Have a happy weekend and happy computing. Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu
fenger@galaxy.cps.msu.edu (Steven V Fenger) (04/20/91)
In article <28109@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >TIME OUT! > >This discussion has been throwing around the phrase "scan rate" a wee bit >too much. I think we need to start clarifying "horizontal" and "vertical" >since I, for one, am becoming confused. > >Sure, that new Sigma card does 72hZ. But isn't that VSR (vertical scan >rate)? And doesn't that determine flickeriness? A monitor that does 15-48 >is pretty good from what I here. But that is HSR! *NOT* VSR! How can a >monitor that does 48kHz work with a 72kHz card? It WON'T. Why? Because >they are too different ratings! > >Brian > >PS I'm STILL confused! :-) Very good points. "Scan rate" is being used as a catch all phrase. But there is a thread of truth here. The verticle sync rate is not totally independant of the horizontal sync. A higher VSR requires a higher HSR. For instance, you cannot have a 72Hz VSR and a 48kHz HSR to display 1024x768 (but it can work for 800x600). Here are some specs from my VGA Wonder+: HSR VSR Res 56.4kHz 69.7Hz 1024x768 ni 48.3 59.6 1024x768 ni 48.0 72.0 800x600 ni 37.6 60.0 800x600 ni 36.7 69.8 640x480 ni 35.5 87.0 1024x768 i 35.0 56.0 800x600 i 33.8 96.0 800x600 i 31.5 60.0 640x480 ni Notice that the higher the VSR, the higher the HSR is needed for the same screen resolution. Steven Fenger fenger@frith.egr.msu.edu \ fenger@cps.msu.edu > But all roads lead to fenger@galaxy.cps.msu.edu fenger@power1.ee.msu.edu /
dth@cs.brown.edu (Dzung T. Hoang) (04/21/91)
In all the calculations of refresh rate and how 60Hz or less implies flickering, one important factor has been left out--the phosphor. The phosphor on the monitor screen lights up for some time after an electron hits it. This length of time is variable and is determined by the "persistence" of the phosphor. A monitor with a higher persistence phosphor will be less likely to show flicker even at 60Hz. But then the high persistence can pose other problems, such as trails when doing animation. Television is interlaced and each pixel is effectively refreshed at a rate of 30Hz. How many of you notice flicker on the tv screen? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzung T. Hoang dth@cs.brown.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
burkey@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Michael Burkey) (04/21/91)
Ye Gads what a rag on monitors. I will agree that a refresh rate higher than 60Hz is nicer, however the price is generally outrageous. Furthermore, most video cards will have problems doing 1024x768 at any higher than a 60Hz refresh rate. The typical trident/tseng labs 1Mb card has an onboard crystal that maxes out at 65Mhz. This allows for a maximum horizontal refresh of 48khz and maximum vertical of 60Hz at 1024x768 (unless you remove the overscan aka border areas). 800x600 at 72Hz is quit nice on non-interlaced monitors (48khz horiz). If the flicker at 1024x768 bothers you, shift to 800x600. Most monitors that I have seen seem to top out at around 50khz horizontal, and as a EE major and someone fairly familiar with computer equipment I can understand why. It is VERY hard to build equipment with a higher sync frequency and even harder to build it in such a way as to get a class B FCC certification. The Sun Monitors are FCC class A and put of quite a bit of noise. I'll be honest, I use a color Sun with the trinitron tube all day and the thing gives me a headache and kills my eyes. To each their own. The Mag Computronics 14" Color is NICE (49.5 Khz Max). I think it has a better picture than the Sony/Seiko/NEC et al. in persnal opinion. For the most part 60Hz is not that bad. -- this is what standard IBM 640x480x16 mode uses by the way -- I have heard some complaints but in general they have been few and far between. -- People, before you make a decision, see if the amount of flicker at 640x480 bothers you, and if not, it won't at 1024x768 60Hz either! M Burkey
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/21/91)
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes: >This discussion has been throwing around the phrase "scan rate" a wee bit >too much. I think we need to start clarifying "horizontal" and "vertical" >since I, for one, am becoming confused. For any particular combination of interlaced/noninterlaced and resolution, the horizontal scan rate completely controls the vertical scan rate. Anyone who passed 6th grade math can easily work it out. -- It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (04/23/91)
From article <1991Apr20.004434.21596@d.cs.okstate.edu>, by ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG): > p.s. I checked around for 4D's at that time and the lowest I find is > nearly $1100. I checked with at least 5 well-established discount > mail-order shops and several smaller ones. It might be easier for you CompUSA (formerly Soft Warehouse) had the 4d @ ~$950 when I was in there 2 weeks ago. john gay.