home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Path: eisner.decus.org!hansen
- From: hansen@eisner.decus.org (Scott Hansen)
- Subject: Re: [Q] the BEST monitor
- X-Nntp-Posting-User: HANSEN
- Organization: DECUServe
- Message-ID: <1996Feb29.094034.1@eisner.decus.org>
- References: <DnHtKE.GK4@cee.hw.ac.uk> <8BBA576.000E000338.uuout@tfw.franken.de>
- X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:40:34 GMT
-
- In article <8BBA576.000E000338.uuout@tfw.franken.de>, sherri.klinkert@tfw.franken.de (SHERRI KLINKERT) writes:
- >
- > > I had been told that the 1960 was the best monitor, thankyou for
- > > informing me
- > > otherwise, I have never heard of the 1440..
- > >
- > > Jon
- >
- > I've been told that the all around *best* monitor for the A1200 is the
- > 1942, that its a perfect match...and that the 1960 was next in line...
- >
- > MicroVitec is a very new thing, I think, isn't it? I just heard something
- > bad about them recently in one of these newsgroups, but I can't remember
- > what it was...the only reason I paid any attention to it at all was
- > because my NEC multisync just died and I've been looking for a new monitor.
- >
- > ---Sherri
-
- As I mentioned in a previous post, Amiga Computing US Edition recently
- reviewed the M1438S monitor and essentially said that in almost all
- respects it is a very bad monitor which made even the 1942 look good. By
- all reliable reports the 1942 was never a very good monitor (despite
- Commodore's pathetic attempts to make us think otherwise), and although
- it was newer and far more easy to find than the 1960 (or 1950), most 1200
- owners stayed away from it. I would like to know if anybody out there has
- real experience with the M1438S and can either confirm or refute Amiga
- Computing's assessment of it.
-
- Scott
-