home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.zenith:993 um.h19:178
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.zenith,um.h19
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!osmoviit
- From: osmoviit@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Kari Osmoviita)
- Subject: Re: Review of 17" flat screen?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan12.191938.19838@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
- Organization: University of Helsinki
- References: <1993Jan8.205456.22757@socrates.umd.edu> <1993Jan8.225151.7406@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:19:38 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- In <1993Jan8.225151.7406@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> troyer@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Dean Troyer) writes:
-
- >Yup, I'm looking at one now, running Linux/X11 at 1024x768. It's nice to
- >have all that real estate for multiple windows, etc.
-
- Could you tell if the focus is good enough to show 1152x910 Linux/X when
- you do not mind the flicker? Howabout 1024x1024? Can you adjust 1024x1024
- to be a square?
-
- Is the screen surface etched or coated?
-
- I have been waiting to buy Compaq's or Zeniths Flat monitor if they are
- good enough. The resolution question is one and the other is if they can
- sync vertically high enough to achieve reasonable INTERLACED frame rates
- in high resolutions. Eg. 1152x910 at 60 Hz (120 Hz frame rate) interlaced
- is much better than 60 Hz noninterlaced. But I am afraid they have not had
- enough thoughts to ergonomy (compare to Philips which pushes their 160 Hz
- sync capability in their adds.)
-
- Kari
-