home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!nadia!delos!ananke!ak
- From: ak@ananke.stgt.sub.org (Andreas Kaiser)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Subject: Samsung 17" and CTX 17" monitors, which one?(if either)
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <712188540snx@ananke.stgt.sub.org>
- References: <BrwGB9.456@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 22:09:00 GMT
- Organization: ananke
- Lines: 31
-
-
- In article <BrwGB9.456@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
-
- > I was wondering if anyone has any comments about the Samsung 17" monitor
- > or the CTX 17"(1760 model I think) monitor. It seems that you can get them
- > for under $900.00.
-
- Some days ago I had the chance to compare 3 different 17" monitors at
- the same machine using the same resolution of 1280x1024 (RS/6000 under
- X11, BNC cable):
-
- IBM 6091 17" (not a multiscan), Trinitron tube
- EIZO/NANAO F550, no Trinitron tube
- Samsung 17" - I don't know the model name
-
- The IBM made the best impression, closely followed by the F550 (the
- Trinitron tube is known to have a better contrast, but it's also more
- expensive). The Samsung did not even come close. The small characters
- which were sharp and clearly readable with both IBM and EIZO were much
- worse on the Samsung.
-
- At 1024x768 interlaced (IBM XGA with EIZO and Samsung) it was the same
- effect.
-
- From that test with a single Samsung I cannot recommend it. Ok, if it
- were half the pice of EIZO it might be ok at home, but it wasn't much
- cheaper than EIZO (10-15%), so no chance.
-
- :::::::::::::::::::: subnet: ak@ananke.stgt.sub.org
- :: Andreas Kaiser :: fidonet: 2:241/7220.9
- ::::::::::::::::::::
-