home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!nic.unh.edu!kepler.unh.edu!pss1
- From: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
- Subject: Re: Gateway CS1024NI = (!=) Mag Monitor
- Message-ID: <1992Aug31.121916.15955@newshost.unh.edu>
- Sender: news@newshost.unh.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH
- References: <1992Aug30.100035.20906@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:19:16 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Aug30.100035.20906@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
- >
- > Tri-Star also says it OEM's its monitors from Mag. Has anyone actually
- > compared a genuine Mag monitor to either the Gateway or Tri-Star monitors?
- >
- > My general impression has been that Mag monitors (15f,17f) have gotten
- > pretty good ratings while the Gateway monitors are regarded as mediocre
- > at best. I would be surprised if they were the same monitors.
-
- We have both the Gateway and Tri-Star monitors here in our lab. They
- are totally different. The Tri-Star monitor has a set of digital
- front panel controls, while the CS1024NI uses analog controls mounted
- in the back. The Tri-Star monitor, IMHO, has a sharper picture at
- 800x600 and above - it's almost useable at 1024x768, which isn't bad
- for a 14" monitor - whereas the CS1024NI seems a bit fuzzy at the
- higher resolutions. IMHO, the Tri-Star unit is a much better monitor.
-
- Unfortunately, neither one has markings that clearly indicate who the
- OEM is.
-
- Paul
-
- --
- Paul Secinaro
- pss1@kepler.unh.edu
- Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Laboratory
- UNH Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
-