NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/os/mswindo/misc/2269

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-22 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!ukma!rutgers!uwvax!uchinews!machine!chinet!prb
From: [e-mail] (Paul Botts)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: LOTS OF ADVICE SOUGHT
Summary: video, harddrive, scanner
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Aug 92 04:58:37 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Lines: 60


Inspired in large part by my wife's needs as a free-lance graphic
designer, we are about to buy a new home computer (I am slightly stunned
to discover that our 386-25 with 80meg hard drive is getting strained,
but at least the hardware prices keep dropping, sigh). Anyway, there are
a couple of key decision points that I'd like to throw out on the floor
for comment and discussion, and maybe get a good flame war or two
going...-;)

1) Since my wife needs to deal with spot and process color, and start
moving into scanned photos, our present 256-color SVGA card and monitor
just doesn't cut it. Speed is an issue here, too (the current card drags
in the more intensive WIndows apps like Corel Draw). I have researched this
some, and found that unless we want to spend >$1,000 for a really
top-end video card, choosing between hicolor capability and speed is a
series of tradeoffs, at least with the video card. The ATI Graphics
Ultra Windows accelerator card, for instance, would be great for speed,
but doesn't do the hi-color.
Right now the best card-monitor combination for up to $1,000 appears to
be the NEC 4FG 15-inch monitor (with this "Accu-color" system which
looks useful for matching colors on the screen), with the Diamond
Speedstar 24X graphics card. That card is an accelerator, though
probably not as fast as some such (it's DRAM, not VRAM), but it can
do 32,768 colors at
800x600, and 16.7 million colors at 640x480 (it is a 24-bit card). When
the extra colors are not needed, it should be simple to use Windows
setup to choose a 800x600x256 driver and get faster screen redraws.
This is a non-interlaced monitor and the card and monitor together would
provide good refresh rates for a sharp, flicker-free picture, or so it
appears from the specs. The card retails for less than $200, so if later
we have the means and desire to move into a really hi-end 24-bit card,
we won't have much of an investment to write off, and this monitor
appears to be good enough to handle such a card.
Any comments about these choices? Anybody out there have this monitor
and/or this card, who could render any first-hand experience? Is there a
factor I'm missing in choosing the video card/monitor combination?
Assuming we get a scanner, would this monitor/card combination be
adequate for touching up photos on the screen?

2) Regarding a scanner: what should we look for in a scanner? Say, for
black-and-white, as opposed to color? Are these cheap hand-held scanners
claiming to do 256 shades of gray worth a damn, perhaps at least for
line art and drawings? What kind of dpi rating is considered the minimum
to be useful for light professional use?

3) Other than daisy-chaining peripherals, is there a reason to get a
SCSI hard drive instead of IDE? I though there was a speed boost, but
the salesmen say it ain't so, say a good IDE drive will be just as fast
as a SCSI one, and save the $200 cost of the SCSI controller.


Okay, that;s a lot of questions, so any feedback about any partcular
points would be most welcome. If you don't want to post (though I'm sure
others will be interested in a discussion of these points), email would
be fine; after a bit I'll summarize the consensus, if any, and report on
what we finally decide to buy and wh

Thanks in advance!
Paul Botts
[e-mail]