terence@ttidca.TTI.COM (Terence Davis) (08/21/90)
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,
Terrypiety@hplred.HP.COM (Bob Piety) (08/23/90)
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
nbladt@aut.UUCP (Norbert Bladt) (08/24/90)
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
tron@db.toronto.edu ("Carlos G. Mendioroz") (08/24/90)
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...