terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis) (09/05/90)
Recently I posted some articles asking about high resolution monitor/board
combinations for the PS/2 series, as well as some questions about extra hard
disks and tape backup for the PS/2. I got many responses on the monitor
questions and only a couple on the storage inquiry. As it's been 5 days
since the last response I'll now post the results.
My final solution to the High-Res board was solved when I purchased the NEC
Graphics Engine. I haven't used it yet since the monitor question is still
unanswered (although I'm leaning toward the Sony 1304). One of the requesters
mentioned a 1200 x 1024 16" Sony monitor, but I have no infomation on this.
Also, I will need to purchase the OS/2 driver for the board, another $150
investment. From what I've read and the responses sent to me, it really seems
to be the best board for the price/performance. I got several requests for
information about what kind of board I bought, but the mail always bounced so
here it is:
I have the 256 color Micro Channel version of the GE. It uses the PS/2
slot with the graphics extension on it, so there is no on-board VGA. This
allows the motherboard VGA to run concurrently if the software can deal with
two monitors (some debuggers do this. Codeview for one, I think). The
extra memory is added as a daughter card, which, so I'm told, will not
impinge on neighboring cards. I bought mine for $1200 from a dealer near
me. I've seen it for $969 from PC Brand, but it took two calls before I
got someone who knew they sold the MC version.
The storage question will have to wait until I need it. I expect to buy
some kind of SCSI Bus Mastering board and a large >= 300 MB when I need
to. The SCSI board will have the added benefit of driving a CD-ROM. I
believe IBM has such a device right now, but by the time I'm ready to buy
one for myself, I expect others to be around.
Tape backup: So far it's Core Tapelight. It uses the b: floppy connector
thus no extra slot taken up, stores ~300MB (compressed), will work with OS/2
RSN! and is <$600. This will also have to wait until I really need it.
Once I get the monitor, card and software all set up, I'll post a summary of
my experiences with it.
So here are the responses in the following order:
8514/A
NEC Graphics Engine
Sony 1304
NOTE: There are some allusions to a PC Magazine article featuring high-res
boards and monitors in the responses. The issue is April 10, 1990.
====== 8514/A ======
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 1990 17:45:01 -0400
From: Carl Riehm <uunet!maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca!riehm>
Message-Id: <9007312145.AA14050@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
To: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM
Subject: Re: 8514/A, IBM/Core SCSI disks and Backup questions
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
In-Reply-To: <18894@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Status: R
I have the 8514a adapter and 8514 monitor. I like it generally but it is not
supported by as many pieces of software as I had hoped when I bought it. I am
not bothered by (nor do I notice the effect of) the interlacing. But if I had
my druthers I'd druther have one of the new NEC monitors (the 4D perhaps?). I
suspect that they are brighter than the IBM 8514. Carl Riehm.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 10:56:26 -0700
From: uunet!ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com!pisces!eclarke (Eric S. Clarke)
Message-Id: <9008011756.AA07992@pisces.paloalto.ibm.com>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com (Terence Davis)
Subject: Re: 8514/A, IBM/Core SCSI disks and Backup questions
Status: R
I am using the 8514/a with an 8514 monitor to read the news now. I am running
this under AIX. It does have the memory upgrade on the card, but this won't
make in diference in normal aplications. In general, I can get several 80x25+
windows on the screen. But, they do need to overlap. The other monitor that
I use on this system is a VGA. It is a bit small.
Personally, I don't know that I would want to pay for the 8514/a + 8514
monitor.
Eric S. Clarke UUCP: uunet!ibmsupt!eclarke
1510 Page Mill Road INTERNET: eclarke%ibmsupt@uunet.uu.net
Palo Alto, CA 94304 IBM Internal: eclarke@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com
415-855-4458 T/L: 465-4458 IBM VNET: ECLARKE at PALOALTO
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 20:38:47 EDT
From: uunet!neat.ai.toronto.edu!lsuc!nrcaer!cognos!roberts (Robert Stanley)
Message-Id: <9008040038.AA03589@cognos>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: PS/2s and OS/2
Status: R
Terence,
I saw your request for information about PS/2s and OS/2:
=> From: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis)
=> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
=> Subject: 8514/A, IBM/Core SCSI disks and Backup questions
=> Summary: some questions
=> Keywords: 8514/A SCSI
=> Message-ID: <18894@ttidca.TTI.COM>
=> Date: 30 Jul 90 22:05:48 GMT
=> Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica
By way of introduction, I head a combined artificial intelligence and
graphics research group. My group was an OS/2 beta-site for Microsoft
from early in 1988, and we currently sport the following equipment:
* Compaq 386/20, 7-10M RAM, 120M HD, Compaq VGA board and monitor,
3-Com 3C501 EtherLink card (ultra-dumb), Microsoft InPort Mouse.
(two of these, one with a pair of type 47 60M drives, and one
with a 120M 12.5msec CDC Wren drive)
* IBM PS/2 Model 80-111 (20MHz), 8M RAM, 115M ESDI HD, 8514/A adapter
and 8514 monitor, 3-Com 3C523 EtherLink/MC card, Microsoft Mouse.
* IBM PS/2 Model 70-A21 (25MHz), 16M RAM, 115M ESDI HD, 8514/A adapter
and 8514 monitor, 3-Com 3C523 EtherLink/MC card, IBM Mouse.
* IBM PS/2 Model 80-A31 (25MHz), 16M RAM, 320M SCSI HD (12.5 msec!),
8514/A adapter and 8515 monitor, 3-Com 3C523 EtherLink/MC card,
Microsoft Mouse.
I started with a homogeneous set of 5 Compaq 386/20s for two reasons:
first off they were blindingly fast and super-reliable, and secondly
Microsoft only warranted its experimental software to run on Compaqs.
These continue to work fine, although we have added both memory and
hard disk - they all started at 4M RAM and 60M HD. Using version 1.2
(Presentation Manager) of OS/2 on the VGAs simply doesn't provide
enough real estate when real PM applications are in use. There aren't
very many of these commercially available, but this has been our target
environment from the outset, and we run in it all day every day. I am
currently trying to decide what extended graphics to add to these AT
bus machines - whether I should go with an 8514/A emulation or simply
go for super VGA. I absolutely cannot justify the cost of something
like an Artist or Nth Engine setup for what we do, much as I would like
to have one.
The bottom line here is "is there an OS/2 PM driver for the board?",
because if there isn't you can kiss the board goodbye. I quite literally
don't know how I would drive an 8514/A emulation on the AT bus, but we
had to hack our own 8514/A driver in the first place - this is absolutely
not recommended as an approach.
We bought the PS/2s, one at a time reluctantly, because we had various
reasons for supporting IBM's OS/2 Extended Edition. We acquired the
systems in the order listed. All work absolutely fine running IBM OS/2
out of the box, *and* Microsoft's beta development versions!! However,
their performance is non optimal under the latter, surprise, surprise.
The 8514/A boards have caused us no problem, other than in the total
lack of information. I have personal direct contact with the head of
the IBM team which effectively developed the current 8514/A driver
(they recruited a Microsoft OS/2 wizard to do this), and the current
IBM OS/2 driver is stable and moderately OK, although it introduces
some interesting mouse tracking problems. The 8514 monitors are a
heap of shit, but not as bad as the standard 8513 monitor for VGA.
However, for straight OS/2 presentation manager use you can get some
truly spectacularly crisp and colourful on-screen displays. Fonts
are a problem, and blocks of some colours such as pale yellow really
flicker badly. On balance, I would say that under OS/2 PM you would
be really pushed to generate a situation in which flicker attributable
solely to the 8514/A interlace was even visible, let alone a problem.
If you are going to be doing CAD/CAM style graphics inside a PM window
your mileage may vary - this is application specific. The 8515 monitor
is a smaller, crisper, clearer version of the 8514, but if you hate
the tiny fonts on the 8514 you'll loathe them on the 8515. Personally,
I am a minimalist, and much prefer it.
I have seen the 8514/A driving a higher quality monitor, and it is nice,
but not sufficiently nicer to justify the money. Right now the 8515 is
*real* cheap because IBM is giving a $400 rebate on them if you buy them
bundled with a PS/2 system. That's what I would recommend.
The real killer under OS/2 is the disk, especially when it starts swapping
to disk. You definitely need plenty of disk, and I would rate 120M as
the bare bones minimum for OS/2 development. Get the fastest disks you
can afford. The A-series model 70s and 80s have a cache, which is supposed
to help. We benchmark the 70-A21 at about 80% of the Compaq 386/20 with
type 47 disk, and 60% of the Compaq 386/20 with the Wren. The SCSI on
the model 80-A31 is fine, and the disk is very fast. We've only just
got this one in, and I haven't formally tested it, but subjectively it
feels about as fast as the Compaq. Our ESDI controller boards are the
only hardware failures we have had - the 80-111 went through three in a
year, and the 70-A21 has been through one as well. I'd say go SCSI if
you can, for speed and reliability, and not for the added expandability.
Now to your detailed questions...
=> I am thinking about purchasing an IBM PS/2 70 A21 and am curious about some
=> things.
Lack of slots will kill you. 8M RAM max on motherboard, so our
configuration had all slots filled on day one (Ethernet, memory, 8514/A).
Make your own decision on this, but I priced an A-series model 80 as a
few hundred bucks cheaper than the equivalent model 70 once I had added
all the memory. The 80s eliminate the lack of slots problem, and they
don't occupy much under-desk space. Actually I hate having a box *on* my
desk, especially one which won't take the weight of the monitor!
=> First, has anyone used the 8514/A adapter with the 8514/8515 monitor?
=> If so how do you like it?
See above. It is fine for standard PM applications running IBM's driver,
although mouse tracking can be a bit peculiar.
=> Does the interlace mode cause problems and how do you like the extra
=> resolution.
I am unclear what you mean by resolution. You absolutely need the extra
pixels for serious work in a PM environment - 1024x768 versus the 640x480
of VGA. The 8514 monitor has a fairly coarse dot pitch which I dislike,
much preferring the finer dot pith of the 8515. Neither are as crisp as
any of the Compaq range (Video Graphics and Advanced Graphics).
=> I have a Zenith FTM 1492 at work and it's fabulous! However, it gets
=> crowded with windows pretty fast and the extra resolution might be worth it.
If your use of resolution is equivalent to area of on-screen real estate
(== number of pixels) then you are correct. But if you like to have a
physically large display area (our suns all have 25-inch monitors, but
are only 1K by 1K pixels) this is simply a matter of personal preference.
IBM plan to make a new 1024x768 standard on the PS/2 motherboard the way
they currently have VGA. This is solely because of OS/2 PM.
Note: under OS/2 in our environment I never have less than a dozen windows
on screen simultaneously, whether iconified or open. I *frequently*
have more, and I am frequently constrained by lack of real-estate.
=> Second, the new IBM SCSI controller/disks might be worth the cost for the
=> extra speed/storage, but it's expensive. One benefit is that the SCSI
=> controller can controll a CD-ROM. Again cost is important.
You have to measure cash dollars against cost of frustration in use. The
ESDI boards have proven themselves rather unreliable, and they are *always*
back-ordered. We have had a couple of 8-10 day down periods, with no
replacement boards available on the continent! This may have changed.
There is no doubt that SCSI gives you far greater flexibility, and it
does offer you an alternate expansion path when you are out of slots.
=> I read that IBM is using a controller/disk built by Core, is this true
=> and will they work interchangeably. Also, Core has a Core Tapelight which
=> uses the existing floppy controller instead of a slot (this is great on
=> the slot starved Mdl 70) has anybody used this?
No idea about the provenance of the board, and I haven't opened the machine
to look since I saw your posting. No help on this.
=> One last very important question: How does all of this hardware work with
=> OS/2 and the High Performance File System.
With OS/2, fine. I can't really comment about the HPFS. The HPFS does
offer some significant advantages, but our software has to run on non-HPFS
systems, so we tend not to use it. It is *really* ugly maintaining mixed
HPFS and non-HPFS partitions, although it can be done. If you are doing a
lot of swapping - i.e. your task load regularly exceeds available real
memory or you have an application running its own virtual internal database
(something we do a lot) - there is merit in mounting the HPFS. The bottom
line is that OS/2 doesn't care because it is a proper operating system and
all the calls go through a device driver, which is the only animal to
touch the hardware directly. Bottom line is how good is the device driver
for your device. If you are running IBM's OS/2, they do a tolerable job
for the devices they support. Microsoft do a barely adequate job, and
Compaq do a dazzlingly good job, to the point where Compaq OS/2 version
1.1 outperforms IBM Standard Edition 1.1 even running both on the IBM!!
Your danger is in picking up third-party hardware, because you are utterly
reliant on the manufacturer of the device for the OS/2 device drivers, and
most third-party vendors have done a piss-poor job thus far. If you want
to write your own drivers you have to face the fact that this is a very
non-trivial exercise in a full multi-tasking OS (the device-driver guide
is a truly joyous piece of prose), and most device manufacturers seem to
be extraordinarily reluctant to release the information you have to have
to be able to do the job. I spent many after hours unravelling the guts
of the 8514/A board way back when, because IBM Hursley simply hadn't
released any information at all.
=> I intend to develop OS/2 software on this thing and I need OS/2 to work.
That's what we all need, but you'll have to live with the fact that it
simply doesn't. At least, not as advertised, and seldom as documented
at the detail level. OS/2 is still very immature, and you have no
alternative to working under this handicap. On the other hand, it can be
extremely rewarding - they have gotten a hell of a lot right in OS/2 too.
=> Send replies to the net or terence@ttidca.tti.com
OK, hope it arrives and is of some use.
=> Thanks,
You're welcome - I know some of the issues that are bugging you.
=> Terry
Robert_S
--
Robert Stanley UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!roberts | 3755 Riverside Drive
Cognos, Inc. INET: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net | PO Box 9707
(Research) Voice: (613) 738-1338 x6115 | Ottawa, Ontario
45 21N 75 41W FAX: (613) 738-0002 | K1G 3Z4, Canada
====== NEC Graphics Engine ======
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 18:06:00 -0700
From: Joe Hsu <hsu@ttidcb.TTI.COM>
Message-Id: <9008030106.AA02074@ttidcb.TTI.COM>
To: terence
Subject: NEC Graphics Engine
Status: R
There is a special issue of PC magazine about 3 mouths ago which had
a cover story on the 1024x768 monitor and adaptors. NEC Graphics Engine is
one of the boards they reviewed on. The board uses TI34010 chip so is faster
than your regular VGA board. But it is far more expensive $1500 vs $350 (list
price).
According to PC magazine, NEC GE runs with both AT and MCA buses. If you
are looking for a display board for MCA, there is a SVGA board that just came
out from GENOA not many months ago. It reportedly is the only SVGA board other
than IBM's own for MCA. The model number is 6600. The list price is $549. I
found a vendor asking $489.
To: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis)
Subject: Re: NEC Graphics Engine
Lines: 5
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 20:44:50 PDT
Message-Id: <9008032044.1.139@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
X-Possible-Reply-Path: Duel@cup.portal.com
X-Possible-Reply-Path: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Duel
Status: R
The NEC Graphics Engine definitely is faster than a S/VGA card and works
wonders on Windows, but it is also priced high. ($900+) I have only seen
it in action but I'm not too sure the extra cost is worth it. But if speed
is what you want you may want to look into it. If they could offer it for
around $300, it would be the supreme graphic card I'm sure.
====== Sony 1304 ======
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 23:31:21 -0700
From: David Fetrow <uunet!milton.u.washington.edu!fetrow>
Message-Id: <9008210631.AA15634@milton.u.washington.edu>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington
Cc:
Status: RO
I find 17" much easier on the eyes. You may be young but how long do you
sit in front of the thing with what size fonts?
If we're talking 4+ hours at a stretch at say 132x40 resolution you really
don't want a 14" monitor....but then, I'm an old guy of 30.
--
-dave fetrow- fetrow@bones.biostat.washington.edu
dfetrow@uwalocke (bitnet) {uunet}!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!fetrow
"Someday we'll look upon Unix with the same nostaglic fondness as JCL"
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
References: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 01:26:42 -0700
From: Ira Baxter <uunet!zola.ics.uci.edu!baxter>
Message-Id: <9008210126.aa20934@PARIS.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Status: RO
Well, I think both choices are wrong... go for a 20". I chose a NEC 3D
when I went to a 1024x768 NEC MVA 1024 Graphics engine about 2 years ago,
and tried to live with it for a month.
What a mistake. I'm not *that* young (38), but not that *old* either.
If you want to run in high res for lots of characters (I get about 50
lines of 170 characters under X11 on Unix, I don't know what you can
squeeze out of OS/2), the small display (and consequently tiny
characters) will just kill you. If you want only 24x80, you hardly
need the 1024x768 display. I swapped it for a NEC XL (recently
replaced by a NEC 5D), swallowed the extra $500.00 (total cost about
$2100.00), and have been very happy ever since.
Don't skimp on the display. You'll be staring at a mistake for years.
I have absolutely *no* connection with NEC.
--
Ira Baxter
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 10:26:05 EDT
From: Timothy Takahashi <uunet!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ttak>
Message-Id: <9008211426.AA29288@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: University of Rochester
Cc:
Status: RO
1024x768 on the Multisync 4D is glorious! Don't go for the 14" screen
tim
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 12:15:13 PDT
From: arthur walker <uunet!portia.stanford.edu!roadman>
Message-Id: <9008211915.AA21005@portia.stanford.edu>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: AIR, Stanford University
Cc:
Status: R
I've been ponering the same questions.
There are a few other options...PC mag did a writeup since may 1990.
I saw an NEC 4D used for $795 and lathough it had a nice tilt-swivel
I was mortified at how small the screen was. I'm looking now for
a used 19" monitor with 48 khz scan.
BTW, the NEC card is allegedly reconfigurable toscreen sizes of your
choice; with a multiscan monitor this might be nice (800x600 too small,
1024 too dense). Read Byte either aug or sept 1990 for specifics -
evidently GSS OEMs that board to NEC.
What I started to say was that the NEC CRT seems not much bigger for such
a lot more money - consider a used 19".
art walker
roadman@portia.stanford.edu
To: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis)
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Lines: 20
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:43:17 PDT
Message-Id: <9008211443.1.7248@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
X-Possible-Reply-Path: Duel@cup.portal.com
X-Possible-Reply-Path: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Duel
Status: R
The Graphics Engine is an excellent graphic card. I have the Sony 1304 and
I just love the monitor. The resolution non-interlaced along with the
incredible dotpitch (.25mm) is great. Not to mention, just the name Sony
gives you an idea of what the color is like.
You may want to go to see the monitor in action in high resolution. I dont
like to sit too close to the monitor so the letters at high resolution may
sometimes be hard to distinguish (is that an N or M? and things like that)
Then again, I have rarely used the higher resolution and when I have it
wasnt for reading. If you plan to be reading at the higher resolution, I
would suggest a 16". But you will have to go find out for yourself if the
1304 is good enough. Also, many mail order places sell the 1304 for around
$619-649. Make sure you are getting the new model!! I ordered my 2 months
ago and had to wait a month to get it because Sony was bringing out the
improved 1304 (What did they improve?? i have no idea) But I didnt mind the
wait since I was getting the newest monitor. So make sure you arent getting
short-changed with last months monitor. The newer one will cost about $40-50
more also.
Whatever you do, good luck! But go and test out the monitors in 1024*768 and
see if you need the 16" or if there really is a big improvement.
Duel@cup.portal.com
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 13:41:37 -0400
Message-Id: <9008211741.AA26523@uunet.uu.net>
To: com!samsung!think!linus!philabs!ttidca!terence%samsung
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
In-Reply-To: your article <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Status: RO
> The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the
The low local price here is $1125 at ACR in Santa Clara. On the other hand
when I went to Jemini two weeks ago, they said that there were no 4D to be
had at the moment. They expected 3-4 weeks because of design bug that they
were fixing. I have no idea if the situation has changed in the past two
weeks.
> Sony is ~$698 from stores around me. If the resolution is the same, but
> the area is different, shouldn't the same amount of information be displayable
> on each screen (albeit the Sony would be in a smaller area)?
You are absolutely right. Same number of pixels give you the same amount of
information. The difference is that the picture is bigger. Of course, I have
heard that the 4D "might" be coerced into doing 1280x1024. I do not know.
I have looked at the Sony and it looks VERY nice. But I like big screens
(I am working on a Sun right now with a 19" screen) so I can have lots of
windows with small fonts). Since the 4D was not readily available, I opted
for the Mitsubishi 16" monitor. It is capable of doing 1280x1024 if I ever
find a graphics card at a reasonable price. The problem is that it only
has a .31 dot pitch.
If you do not want bigger pictures and interested in resolution, I would
suggest the Sony. It is much easier on the pocketbook.
>
> Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net.
>
Richard Asano
uunet!smosjc!richard
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 15:37:36 PDT
From: Scott Eberline <uunet!prodnet.la.locus.com!scotte>
Message-Id: <9008212237.AA752014@prodnet.la.locus.com>
To: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Cc:
Status: R
You might want to have a look at the Nanao 9070S or 9070U. I have a 9070S
and have been very pleased with it: 1024x768 non-interlaced on about a 15.25"
screen. (The ads lie; it's not really a 16" screen, unless maybe you take
off the plastic cowling and measure the tube that way. I know a 16" screen
doesn't mean a 16" display size necessarily, but I expected it to at least
reflect the glass area not hidden by plastic.) I don't know what the diff-
erence is between the 9070S and the 9070U.
Actually the owner's manual says it can handle 1280x800, but I don't have a
video card to try it with.
I got it about a year ago for around $950, and the price has probably gone
down since then.
Scott D. Eberline scotte@locus.com or uunet!lcc!scotte
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 01:23 CDT
From: Charlie Kestner <chaz@chinet.chi.il.us>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Cc:
Status: R
In article <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM> you write:
>
>This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768
>non-interlaced 14" monitor. I have decided to go the route of 1024x768
>and need to choose a monitor. My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will
>do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor. That eliminated the
>NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway). But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony
>1304 14". The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the
>Sony is ~$698 from stores around me. If the resolution is the same, but
>the area is different, shouldn't the same amount of information be displayable
>on each screen (albeit the Sony would be in a smaller area)? I'm young, so
>my eyes can still read the smaller print. In a recent review (April 10, 1990)
>PC Magazine LOVED the colors/resolution/spherical shape of the Sony but loved
>the 4D for it's digital memory. My use will be purely on the higher resolution
>so it will never need to remember anything. Any comments/help would be
>appreciated. I don't really want to spend twice as much money on a monitor
>who's only benefit is a "memory" which I won't use.
>
>Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net.
>
>P.S. If anyone's used the NEC Graphic Engine (any monitor) with OS/2 PM I'd
> love to hear your comments.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Terry
I LOVE my Sony 1304!
I compared it to the Zenith flat screen (slick) and the NEC 3D (ugh).
The Sony had better colors and less distortion than the Zenith (which
was no slouch, btw).
Since the Sony already looked better than the Zenith, and was a multi-
syncher (Zenith's only VGA), Sony got the nod.
I thought the NEC looked like dog-shit.f* Must be true what netters
say about outfits buying ads in PC Ragazine.
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 18:06:15 EST
From: uunet!bruce.cs.monash.oz.au!herbie (Andrew Herbert)
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
References: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Status: R
In comp.os.msdos.misc you write:
>This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768
>non-interlaced 14" monitor. I have decided to go the route of 1024x768
>and need to choose a monitor. My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will
>do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor. That eliminated the
>NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway). But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony
>1304 14".
I'm trying to decide the same thing. Sony also make a 16" monitor that
will do 1200x1024 ni (presumably multisync). I'm not sure how it compares
in price to the 4d.
How do you find the graphics engine. Is your's a 16 colour version or 256?
Is the vga register-level compatible? How widely available are drivers
for Windows/OS-2/Unix(X-Windows)?
Thanks for any info...
>Terry
Cheers, Andrew
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 10:43:56 CDT
Posted-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 10:43:56 CDT
Message-Id: <9008221543.AA22304@paducah.cs.utexas.edu>
Received: by paducah.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.4-Client)
id AA22304; Wed, 22 Aug 90 10:43:56 CDT
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Cc:
Status: R
Sony is ~$698 from stores around me. If the resolution is the same, but
the area is different, shouldn't the same amount of information be displayable
on each screen (albeit the Sony would be in a smaller area)? I'm young, so
Yes.
my eyes can still read the smaller print. In a recent review (April 10, 1990)
But you might not like it. I hate it (16" is fine, 20" is much better, and
14" is awful).
Glenn
Organization: *IX Upstate NY UNIX Users Group
Reply-To: uunet!crdgw1.ge.com!sixhub!davidsen
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 21:05:41 EDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5 4/17/89)
From: uunet!sixhub.crd.ge.com!davidsen (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Message-Id: <9008222105.AA04591@sixhub.UUCP>
Status: R
To: terence@ttidca.TTI.COM
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
In-Reply-To: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Cc:
Reply-to: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
I'm getting rid of a non-syncing monitor because I find that I do use
the other modes and the damn thing drives me crazy with having to diddle
the controls. The 4D and 5D are "set once" and they work.
Age of eyes is not the only concern, working distance is another. I
like to be back a way from the monitor, and 16" would be nice. I can
read 80x25 on a 14", but the 5D allows me to run X_windows at eight
feet.
Good luck.
---
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Message-ID: <100010001@hplred.HP.COM>
Date: 22 Aug 90 19:14:48 GMT
References: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 10
I have a Seiko CM-1430, which only does *interlaced* 1024x768. So, I
was ready to sell it and buy the Sony 1304 for non-interlaced hi-res.
But, when I went to look at one, I noticed that the VGA (640x480) mode
was no where near as crisp as I'm used to seeing on my Seiko. So, I'm
still using the Seiko and foregoing 1024x768 non-interlaced.
But, if I had to have the hi-res, non-interlaced, I'd seriously look
into the NEC-4D or other monitor. I did *not* like the Sony 1304.
Bob
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Message-ID: <90Aug24.081141edt.2787@ois.db.toronto.edu>
Date: 24 Aug 90 12:12:20 GMT
References: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM> <100010001@hplred.HP.COM>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 13
piety@hplred.HP.COM (Bob Piety) writes:
>But, if I had to have the hi-res, non-interlaced, I'd seriously look
>into the NEC-4D or other monitor. I did *not* like the Sony 1304.
>Bob
Be warned though, if you are upgrading the monitor, that the 4-D may
not work with certain cards, specially those that give interlaced hi-res
modes. The 4-D starts syncing at 30KHz, not at 15 - 16 as most 14"
multisync's do...
You may say that it makes no sense using a non-interlaced hi-res monitor
(as the 4-D) with an 'interlaced' card, but that's another point...
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 16:53:33 CDT
From: uunet!motcid!marble!gsmdocrl (ADMIN - gsmdocrl (yeates))
Message-Id: <9008242153@zircon6>
To: terence@ttidca.tti.com
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
References: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Status: R
I have a 14" 1024x768 capable monitor ( Gateway 2000 / Tatung interlaced). I don't
find interlaced such a problem as some magazines lead you to believe. That said I
run windows 3 at 800xwhatever - because at 1024 things are so so small (my eye sight
is also good). So I would go for the 4D (or 5D even) - that range (even the 3D
which you don't like) have a v.good reputation. I use a big Sun workstation at
work & would love to have a big hi-res monitor at home - if you can afford it go
for the big one! ( I haven't regreted getting higher spec PC stuff so far
- who would have thought 4M of RAM 65M hard disc & SVGA and a 386 would be a
a middle of the range machine so quickly!). You can never get too much power or
quality (....well almost never! ;^) ).
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+"
Message-ID: <675@aut.UUCP>
Date: 24 Aug 90 06:30:55 GMT
References: <19265@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Organization: Ascom Autelca AG, CH-3073 Guemligen Switzerland
Lines: 22
Xref: ttidca comp.os.os2.misc:121 comp.os.msdos.misc:178 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:983 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:1148 comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware:91
terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis) writes:
>This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768
>non-interlaced 14" monitor. I have decided to go the route of 1024x768
>and need to choose a monitor. My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will
>do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor. That eliminated the
>NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway). But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony
>1304 14". The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the
>Sony is ~$698 from stores around me.
I would look for the EIZO 9070 S (in Europe) or Nanao 9070 (in USA)
It does 1024x768 NI, is 16" and should be cheap,t, too. It doesn't have memory
either. And IMHO it looks good. Just a hint :-)
>Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net.
Norbert Bladt.
--
Please use this path as return address. DON'T USE THE RETURN PATH IN THE HEADER
Norbert Bladt, Ascom Autelca AG, Worbstr. 201, CH-3073 Guemligen, Switzerland
Phone: +41 31 52 92 14
EMail: ..!uunet!mcsun!chx400!hslrswi!bladt
From hsu@leda.TTI.COM Tue Aug 28 12:01:17 1990
Received: from leda.tti.com by ttidca.TTI.COM with SMTP
(5.61-bind 1.5+ida/IDA-1.2.8) id AA27881; Tue, 28 Aug 90 12:01:04 -0700
Received: by leda.TTI.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01878; Tue, 28 Aug 90 11:59:35 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 11:59:35 PDT
From: hsu@leda (Joe Hsu)
Message-Id: <9008281859.AA01878@leda.TTI.COM>
To: terence@ttidca
Subject: Re: 1024x768 monitors: 14" vs. 16+
Status: R
In article <675@aut.UUCP>, nbladt@aut.UUCP (Norbert Bladt) writes:
> terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis) writes:
>
>
> >This morning I read some articles about the Sony CDP 1304 1024x768
> >non-interlaced 14" monitor. I have decided to go the route of 1024x768
> >and need to choose a monitor. My video board, a NEC Graphics Engine, will
> >do 1024x768 NI so I want a non-interlaced monitor. That eliminated the
> >NEC 3D (which I don't like anyway). But then there's the NEC 4D 16" and Sony
> >1304 14". The NEC is ~$1150 mail order (~$1400 non-mail order) while the
> >Sony is ~$698 from stores around me.
> I would look for the EIZO 9070 S (in Europe) or Nanao 9070 (in USA)
> It does 1024x768 NI, is 16" and should be cheap,t, too. It doesn't have memory
> either. And IMHO it looks good. Just a hint :-)
>
> >Send responses to terence@ttidca.tti.com or the net.
>
> Norbert Bladt.
> --
> Please use this path as return address. DON'T USE THE RETURN PATH IN THE HEADER
> Norbert Bladt, Ascom Autelca AG, Worbstr. 201, CH-3073 Guemligen, Switzerland
> Phone: +41 31 52 92 14
> EMail: ..!uunet!mcsun!chx400!hslrswi!bladt
Don't buy NEC 4D for 1024x768 resolution. It runs in interlaced mode in that
resolution. Actually, it looks awful even at 800x600 resolution. I have
4D and 5D here. 5D is better at 800x600. Both 4D and 5D run in interlaced
mode at 1024x768, hence are awful.
Joe Hsu (hsu@tti.com)