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.
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.
kens@hplsla.HP.COM (Ken Snyder) (01/17/91)
/ acook@athena.mit.edu (Andrew R Cook) writes: > Interlacing scans every other line per screen refresh. This leads to > perceptible flicker on monitors with short lifetime phosphors. This can > cause your eye to try to follow the flicker, which causes eye-strain > (eye is trying o keep up with the flicker; which is at about 30 Hz for > interlaced 1024x768, ie 1/2 the vertical refresh frequency). Interlacing > can also lead to dimmer screens, since the pixels are refreshed 1/2 as often. The ATI VGA1024 card's solution to interlacing the 1024x768 mode is to move the refresh rate to 87 Hz. This solves both the flicker and brightness problems (to my eyes) very nicely on a NEC 3D. Ken
jin@spdcc.COM (Jerry Natowitz) (01/20/91)
Gateway 2000 quoted me $50 to upgrade the Mag Computronics monitor to a
non-interlaced model. The interlaced version was reviewed in PC Magazine
5/15/90.
--
Jerry Natowitz
Guest user on:
ARPA jin@ursa-major.spdcc.com
UUCP {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!jin