NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/hardware/35122

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!zazen!psl.wisc.edu!psl.wisc.edu!FRIGO
From: [e-mail] (Sean P. Frigo UW-Madison SRC [phone],-2001(FAX))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: NEC 4FG Problems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:49:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Physical Science Lab
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SEAN MICHAEL MCCORMICK) writes:
>[details of problem with uneven image on NEC 4FG monitor, and attempts to
>resolve it deleted]
>>called NEC again and were told to take the new monitor to the same service
>>center, and that NEC would fax the necessary information to the service
>>center to enable them to set up the monitor properly. Somehow I don't think
>>that this is going to work. Has anybody experienced similar problems? Does
>>NEC have sort of quality control problems? I still don't have my monitor
>>back and have to use a standard VGA monitor which the store loaned me. This
>>is not the kind of quality I expected from a monitor for which I paid
>>approximately $1000.
>
> We have purchased 7 of the NEC 5FG monitors for use in our lab.  One of
>these is bad and needs to be returned.  It has a bad distortion in the four
>corners, and the box looked like it had been dropped.
>
> We had one other one which displayed distortion in 1024x768 graphics mode,
>a slight out of focus picture, I imagine.
>
> We're going to be returning the first monitor to be repaired, and so we'll
>see what NEC's response time is on this.
>
> Right now we've elected not to have the second monitor repaired.  We only
>use these monitors for standard VGA res(strange eh?), and really can't
>afford the repair time loss.
>
> On a side note, we just received our free anti-glare filter screens for
>these NEC 5FG's last week.  As some might recall, NEC offered these free to
>anybody purchasing 4FG's and 5FG's from like September thru December.
>They do improve the quality of the display immensely.  However, IMHO, they
>are not worth the $130 retail price.  The picture does not wash out quite as
>bad in bright office lights.  But, the reflection is still bad enough that
>you can literally groom yourself while using the monitor.
>
> I feel this is the strongest negative point against the NEC monitors.  NEC
>seems to have forgotten they are making computer monitors here, and not
>Television sets.>


I am on my 3rd NEC 5FG in 9 months.  Mon 1 had solder blotches on mask and
unlit pixels; Mon 2 had flyback transformer fail and squealed loudly; Mon
3 had unlit pixels.  The local service center was a real fright fest.  I
just peeled off a 2 page letter to NEC.  As a starving grad student, don't
quite think the extra dough was worth it...Oh, yeah, the only way to make
the 5FG reflect better is to evaporate a thin film of aluminum on it.  I
think the NEC engineers live in dark caves and their labs are no better lit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean P. Frigo                        internet: [e-mail]
UW-Madison SRC and Department of Physics                  bitnet:  frigo@wiscpsl
3731 Schneider Drive                                       voice:  [phone]
Stoughton WI 53589-3097                                      fax:  [phone]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------